Abolish the Term 'Tribe'
By Julian: Boier (*)
The derogatory, imperialist, colonial, racist and fascist term 'TRIBE' was coined from the Latin term 'tribus', which was the way by which the Romans and ultimately the imperialist Roman Empire denied any of "their" conquered peoples from other nations their rightful nation status in order to subjugate them further. Those who have followed in these imperialist footsteps, have persisted and still are pathologically insisting today to use the term 'tribe', and thereby they are also easily identified as part of the still prevailing neo-colonial mindset of the military-industrial complex. Unfortunately even those who allegedly "fight for the rights of the "tribes" only show that they either are totally ignorant or do follow the hidden agenda of the supremacists.
While assessing the level of insult, the term "nigger" represents for an individual person what the term "tribe" represents for oppressed aboriginal nations. The difference is only that for "nigger" the whole process ranging from giving up ignorance, creation of awareness and nowadays legal punishment has been completed, while with the term "tribe" the supremacists still have a hidden tool to express their disgust and disregard for other genuine peoples and especially the aboriginal nations.
Listening specifically to the BBC (British Broadcasting Corp.), who is describing sizeable, civilized nations like the Oromo, the Afar, the Maasai, the Tswana, the Dinka, the Inuit, the Nuer, the Sidama, the Tutsi, the Ashanti, the Hehe, the Yanomani, the Hopi, the Zulu, the Cherokee, the Ibo, the Maori, the Buganda, the Palawah, the Tigrinya, the Lakota, the Kikuyu, the Fayu, the Luo, the Maya, the Nuba, the Hadzabe, the Akha, the Acholi, the San, the Hutu, the Shona, the Yali, the Ngwane et al. as 'those tribes' is very painful - first and foremost for the people of these nations themselves, but also for English speaking scholars, who have evolved and could resist to develop a racist and colonial mind-set or succeeded to rid themselves of it.
Like all oppressive strategies, it started more sublime, and the first use of the term 'tribus' appeared in Roman's pre-imperialist times, with the word as such having possibly Etruscan roots. Under Romulus as their leader, the Romans began to divide their own population into higher standing urban and lower standing rural strata of the Roman society. The Roman masterminds thereby experimented with their own people first.
While having been started in Rome around 495 BC as a system during the times of the early republic, already in 242 - 240 BC the Tribal Assembly (''comitia tributa'') in the Roman Republic was organized in 35 'tribes' and distinguished four "urban tribes" and 31 "rural tribes". Right from the beginning the important part of that system was that they were then all rendered as 'tributum' [tribute, contribution, tax] paying subordinate strata of the newly created state by the patricians, who imposed themselves as nobility and superior to their other fellow humans.
The term and system were early extended to partitions of military contingents too, often managed as just another form of slavery of people, who were forced to pay tribute to Rome in form of providing young men for military and young women for domestic services - another way to further subjugate even the vassals of the Romans. Thus coercive social dominance was played out even in the tyrannical right of the first night (jus primae noctis), that certainly was not just a fiction and myth, but according to Talmudic and later Midrashic sources the moral legitimation of the conqueror (rather than admitting rape) by which the Roman occupiers are said to have claimed such actions as privilege to actually foster genocide by other means.
The origin of Slavery per se, however, goes much further back and it is assumed that it first started with "Paradise Lost", e.g. the unfortunate development of mankind at the end of the last ice-age around 10,000 BC from being free hunter-gathers to at first sheep owners and then agriculturalists of grain-bearing grasses. The concept of handling, keeping, managing and ultimately ruling over other lifeforms The ancient Assyrian, Sumerian and Babylonian people already held slaves as did the Etruscan culture later which influenced Greek and Roman life. Since they all were in reality Blacks (as all mankind, except albinoid people of different stages of Albinism) slavery was started by black people, who in turn became the most suffering victims when slavery was perfected by the descendants of the European or Caucasian type Albinos, who derived from Black Asian Ancestral North Indians [proto Indo-Arians (not Aryans, who were Persian nobles) and then Dravidians], during the first wave of their expansionism, and subsequently by the Egyptians, post-Mycenaean and post-Hellenic Greeks, Romans, Ottoman Turks, the Mulatto Arabs and then by the money-savvy Anglo-Saxons.
As more as this kind of "civilization" - i.e. the process of a society developing into a centralized, urbanized, stratified structure with the "ownership" of other lifeforms - developed, as more also humans were subdued to servitude and slavery by their self-styled masters. Already during the 8th century BC in ancient Greece Hesiod mentions in Works and Days that he owned numerous slaves. Slavery became even prevalent at the very moment when Solon established the basis for Athenian "democracy". It is certain that Athens had the largest slave population, with as many as 80,000 in the 6th and 5th centuries BC and some estimate that in Athens, around the fifth century, there was the equivalent of one slave to every free person in the city. In Rome it developed in much the same direction and in the Roman Empire then probably over 25% of the empire's population and 30 to 40% of the whole population of Italy was enslaved.
The Romans were not the only slavers, since they had just copied the trait from the Greeks and the Phoenicians, but their imperium enslaved whole nations and turned them into 'tribes'.
HAMMURABI'S CODE OF LAWS (circa 1780 B.C.) states:
15: "If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates [to escape], he shall be put to death.
16: If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the [police], the master of the house shall be put to death."
Interestingly the known history of the abolition of slavery already started with ancient Greek generals such as the Spartans Agesilaus II and Callicratidas, who refused to take and keep slaves. But it took almost 2,000 years until that idea also caught up finally with the British and Anglo-Americans, who had erected much of their empire based on slavery and servitude of fellow humans (including the white Irish slaves they shipped off to their Caribbean plantations, while keeping their daughters and wives for themselves) as well as on the extortion of indigenous peoples, their 'tribes' they conquered and oppressed.
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves himself even later while sitting as president of the USA in 1801-1809 and is said to have sired off-springs with at least one female slave, wrote for the draft of the Declaration of Independence:
"(King George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms against us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”
This paragraph, however, was voted down by the Congressional Congress and while the first child born at the White House was the grandson of President Thomas Jefferson, the second child born there was his property — the African-American baby of Jefferson's two personal slaves.
Though President Abraham Lincoln then ended slavery for the USA with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, this concerned only chattel slavery and peonage persisted until President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Circular No. 3591, giving teeth to the Anti-Peonage Law of 1867, which criminalized the practice effectively and ended also peonage - but only in 1942. However, and through the criminalization of especially African-Americans and now also Hispanics, the prison-industrial-complex of the USA found new slaves, which work for them almost free of charge, serving even companies like IBM or come "free" to serve with the military overseas.
As a key-feature and already in early Roman times before becoming an imperialist state, a member of a Roman 'tribus' was subjugated to pay or deliver 'tributum'. 'Tributus' (the one who has to deliver) is in the eyes of the oppressor always looked down upon. In addition such 'tributum'-paying construct is in the eyes of the superior-feeling social stratum or oppressor always also used to deny the suffrages the status of a sovereign being and/or to avert and rule out their recognition as a folk of a nation or a separate nation in its own rights with equal status to the nation of the oppressor. The broken (suffragio), oppressed and forced "supporter" - later called "voter" (suffragator) - was rendered by public act as a member of the electorate and as such forced to pay the election tax via the'Comitia tributa'. Under the rule "una tribus = unum suffragium" (one tribe - one vote) - a tax paying group was then able to at least make their voice heard, somehow. "Give these people a voting day every now and then so that they have the illusion of meaningless choice, but make them pay and contribute for that "right" and the illusion that they would have a choice", is the core of the slavery-scam in state-governed societies until today. Earlier on, also money came into this equation, either as tax payments to stay eligible as part of the electorate or for vote-buying.
Aristotle's opinion of the creation of money as a new thing in society was: "When the inhabitants of one country became more dependent on those of another, and they imported what they needed, and exported what they had too much of, money necessarily came into use." He was a visionary scientist and the first who knew Earth is a sphere and not flat, but couldn't imagine to what extend money would be abused. The following worship of "Moneta" ("money" in its early forms of obsidian, copper, bronze or silver) is recorded by Livy who also described the specific temple built in the time of Rome around 413 BC, which contained the mint of imperialist Rome for a period of four centuries.
The system of keeping conquered peoples and people as vassals in so called tributary states ranges far back into ascent of the 'white' (albino) people from their place of origin in Asia. It was institutionalized by the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, termed with the words tribus, contributio etc. by the Romans and persists throughout the times of the Ottoman Empire, throughout the so-called "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", as well as the times of the conquest of the Americas, the days of the Colonies and until today, where new tributary "partners and allies" are strong-armed into what some term the New World Order of their Anglo-American masters.
To top the perfidy of the mastering scheme and dominance scam invented by the Romans, the Tribunus - in English tribune - was invented. This was the title of various elected and sacrosanct officials in ancient Rome, who officially had to protect the interests of the plebeians against the actions of the senate and the annual magistrates, who were uniformly patrician. The word "tribune" is derived from the Roman 'tribes'. The three original Roman 'tribes'', or divisions of the Roman people, known as the Ramnes or Ramnenses, Tities or Titienses, and the Luceres, were each headed by a tribune, who represented each 'tribe' in civil, religious, and military matters. Subsequently, each of the Servian 'tribes' was also represented by a tribune. That is to say, they were in the city of Rome the magistrates of their 'tribes', and performed the sacra on their behalf, and in times of war they were their military commanders.
The two most important were the tribunes of the plebs and the military tribunes. The term is derived from the tribunes, magistrates of the Classical Roman Republic. "Tribunal" originally referred to the elevated seat in the offices of the tribunes, and the term is still sometimes used in this sense in historical writings. For most of Roman history, a college of ten Tribunes of the Plebs were selected by the patrician nobility and allowed to act as "a check on the authority of the senate and the annual magistrates", holding the power of ius intercessio to intervene on behalf of the plebeians, and veto unfavourable legislation. The pressure-release of early social engineering was put in place to serve as whistle and "steam-valve" when the burden placed on the ruled by the rulers became too much to bear. There were also military tribunes, who commanded portions of the Roman army, subordinate to the higher magistrates, such as the consuls and praetors, promagistrates, and their legates. Various officers within the Roman army were also known as tribunes and the title was also used for several other positions and classes in the course of Roman history, but overall they were the double-faced kingpins of the social command-and-control structure.
The Plebeian Tribune was known as the tribune of the people or the tribune of the plebs. The plebeian tribune had no military function, but was strictly a powerful political office. The Tribune at first was promoted by having the power to help the people in a function called ius auxilii. The body of the plebeian tribune was sacrosanct. The Latin term for this power is sacrosancta potestas. He also had the power of the veto.
The number of plebeian tribunes varied. It is believed there were originally only 2, for a short time, after which there were increased to 5. By 457 BC, there were 10. The office of plebeian tribune was created in 494 BC, after the First Secession of the Plebeians. In addition to the two new plebeian tribunes, the plebeians were allowed two plebeian aediles. The election of the overall Plebeian Tribune, from 471 onwards and after the passage of the lex Publilia Voleronis, was by a council of plebeians presided over by a plebeian aedilicius.
Today, the term plebeian is synonymous with lower class. In early Rome, the plebeians (also known simply as plebs) may have been that part of the Roman population whose origin was among the conquered Latins (as opposed to the Roman conquerors). Plebeians were contrasted with the patrician nobility. In the period of the early Roman Republic, membership in the Senate may have been denied to the plebeians, and restricted to the patricians. Since the ruling body of the Senate was more interested in itself than others, the plebeians suffered. But over time the plebeians were able to amass wealth and great power. By the time of Caesar, the patrician Claudius chose to become a plebeian (something he could do through adoption) in order to hold the then important political office, the Tribune of the Plebs. The Plebeiant timeline shows the evolution and devolution from downtrodden to powerful to downtrodden - so symptomatic for the fate of ruled people.
Subsequently and with the Roman Empire having succeeded its vast expansion, the Roman 'tribes' became therefore soon of no use any more to the patrician imperator, but were seen as a potential threat - due to their capabilities to create wealth also for themselves and their limited but still enshrined voting rights. Therefore they were finally rendered obsolete, while the 'tribal' system was increasingly enforced on the non-Romans, especially in the new colonies. As "FreeMen" (by birthright) remained only people and peoples, who were never slaves nor hailing from enslaved colonies or subjugated into tax-paying 'tribes', while interestingly enough "FreedMen" (by act and as such freed by their masters), were automatically again subjugated under the ruling governance of the state.
That the double-faced 'Tribun' persists in form of "modern politicians", who say that they would represent the power of the power, who are as tax-payers allowed to elect them, but in reality eat from the tables of globalist conglomerates and corporations many realize nowadays, though the 'plebs' remains mostly inactive and in stupor as long the stomachs are filled with whatever super-marketed junk-food is distributed and as long as some inciting games are distracting the masses from the actual problems. That this system is bound to fail has been made clear throughout history and still the ill-fated structures of society apparently only allow for it to be resolved by war, or armed struggle - as Julius Malema, leader of the ANC Youth Wing (the African National Congress party of South Africa), puts it.
Considerable debate took place in the past in order to examine whether it is historically and sociologically correct and right to use the old Etruscan-Roman term 'tribe' for peoples and their nations, who are - actually only in the eyes of those observers who hail from industrialized countries - often branded as 'underdeveloped'. It thereby must be observed that cultures, which cling to or reinstate the much more humane forms of egalitarian social relationships and trade with non-monetary means like barter or gift economy likewise are depicted as "underdeveloped" by those, who basically live as parasites from the extortion of monies.
This debate partly stems from discussions about perceived differences between pre-state 'tribes' and contemporary 'tribes'; and as such reflects more the general controversy over cultural evolution and colonialism. Thereby - in the popular imagination - 'tribes' often reflect a way of life that pre-dates, and is more natural than that in modern states, privileges primordial social ties and is clearly bounded, homogeneous, parochial, and stable. Thus, it was believed that 'tribes' organize links between families (including clans and lineages), and provide them with a social and ideological basis for solidarity that is in some way more specific than that of just an "ethnic group" or of a state - often comprising of several nations.
However, anthropological and historical research has challenged all of these notions for the 'tribes' and it should be seen today as what it is: the romanticizing attempt by the colonial oppressor of the "tribes" and their "noble savages". Those are often attempts by paid-for cultural anthropologists, who presented and promoted a system of classification for societies in all human cultures based on the 'natural' evolution of social inequality in a civic state, as well as the hidden expression of the jealousy of people from 'civilized states' still longing for the 'Paradise Lost'. The cultural evolution theories and the role of the Sovereign State in it ultimately always failed and are persistently failing, which were already exposed as a mere reflection of ideas stuck in Darwinism. Furthermore different natural nations forced together into multi-national, artificial states very rarely have grown together, while history has many examples of the breaking up of such conglomerates as soon as the strong, often foreign hand weakens.
Therefore only few still see a 'tribe', historically or developmentally, as a social group existing before the development of, or outside of states, while most understand already that its very origin was coined by polities of self-styled 'master races' subjugating perceived lower standing strata of a population and make them pay their tributes to their masters and/or a governance.
"Tribe" and Colonization
In addition secondary 'tribes' were set up by colonial states as means to extend administrative and economic influence in their hinterland, where direct political control costs too much. States of required and thereby encouraged or recruit peoples 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 neighbouring states. The so-called "scheduled" 'tribes' of the United States or of British India provide good examples of this. This early abuse of Indigenous Peoples is well documented.
'Tribe' is therefore today a specifically rejected term due to its past and present roots in imperialism and colonialism. The word has no shared referent, whether in political form, kinship relations, or shared culture. Some also argue that it conveys a negative connotation of a timeless unchanging past, which of course must be understood as undesirable stagnation before the tribes would vanish.
The modern English term 'tribe', was coined by mainly English and French and later USAmerican explorers and academia, and it soon proved to reflect a purely colonial ideology and attitude; it was subsequently copied by the Portuguese, the Italians, the Spanish and the French, and still exists today in all Romanic languages, tough it is phased out there. As evidenced by a multitude of Castilian texts dating before the colonial expansion of the English and the French, the Portuguese and Spanish empires west of the Atlantic extended over "pueblos", not 'tribes'. Apart from the six major colonial powers the colonial Dutch used the term 'stam' and the Germans and their Austrian clan the word 'Stamm', which is a more ethnological division, but still derogatory, negating the very nation the so addressed peoples resemble.
The Spanish also introduced a similarly pejorative term by calling the native South-Americans 'Indios', which is different from the North-American misnomer of 'Indians' for aboriginal North-Americans, because it was not derived from the early navigational mistake of Christopher Columbus on his way to what is called today the East Indies when he discovered the New World for the Old World. When Columbus washed up on the beach in the Caribbean in 1492, Europeans were calling what is today named India on the old maps Hindustan. He called the local people he found indios (today often wrongly assumed to be Spanish for "Indians"), which derived from the idea that these locals are innocent 'in deos' (before god) since they were perceived as ignorant and untouched by the religious knowledge of the conquistadores, especially when after February 1519 the European invaders killed hundred-thousands of 'Indios' and "sent them to their god" - as statuary example of superiority and for the followers of the Christian God to prevail.
The outcomes of the Berlin conference in 1884-85, convened by the then colonial powers, are well known and its tribulations for the Indigenous Peoples the world over are still strongly felt until today. The state-boundaries, which were agreed by the masters back then and enshrined as never changeable, and the other unified means to handle the colonies still backfire today. This is reality despite the fact that some handouts are distributed by those coined as the "Lords of Poverty", who robbed and still rob native peoples' lands and natural resources. That this is mainly and often only done to avert too obvious hunger-genocide or to quell any uprising is obvious, but it is hardly ever discussed as such by the mainstream media who celebrate such interventions as humanitarian or development aid for the 'tribes'.
Today, however, it is mainly the Anglo-American mainstream, which still tries to persistently use and to even re-enforce the term 'tribe' over and over again.
That all these implications are actually well known by those, who persist to use the term 'tribe' for the "others", is also reflected in the fact that on the British Isles the descendants of colonial Great Britain - the English (Anglo-Saxons), the Welsh (in majority Celts) and the Scots (United New Mix - apparently the genetically most diverse people on Earth) of the United Kingdom recognize each other as nations - like as well the Irish (Celts). They interestingly don't see each other as 'tribes'. Subsequently the Queen is perceived as the Sovereign of her homeland 'Nations' as well as of the Commonwealth states, but alas she continues to speak of her "tribes" when visiting her dominions. The recent attempt by the Scots to separate their nation after 300 years as independent again from the United Kingdom showed clearly which dangers can arise for the parasitic strata, when people become conscious of their own nationhood as well as self-determination and strive to regain their sovereignty as a people. Every dirty trick in the book was played out by London to jeopardize that move.
Indigenous Peoples refuse to be addressed as 'Tribes'
'Tribe' and 'tribal' are therefore terms, which are unanimously rejected by all Indigenous Peoples and First Nations today - specifically due to their revival and use during and since the times of Western colonialism starting in 1492 for the Americas. The native Taino of Hispaniola (today the Dominican Republic and Haiti), where Christopher Columbus began the first rudimentary tribute and extortion system for gold and cotton for the Spanish, disappeared rapidly after their first contact with the invaders, because of overwork and especially, after 1519, when the first pandemic struck Hispaniola, due to the spreading of European communicable diseases.
Spanish conquistadores like Hernan Cortes, who led an expedition that caused the fall of the Aztec nation in Mexico in 1521 and Francisco Pizzaro, the butcher of the Incas, who tried unsuccessfully to destroy the Inca nation in 1524 and in 1526 but then conquered the Incas in Peru in 1533, were both extending Spanish colonial power but also paved the way for the Catholic Church. They were adventurers, explorers and mercenaries in one and these state- and church-sanctioned insurgencies into foreign lands attracted also other soldiers of fortune like German-born Nikolaus Federmann, hispanicised as Nicolás de Federmán, who became a conquistador for the Castilian Crown and the Catholic Church in Venezuela and Colombia.
Intellectuals among these scoundrels liked to quote Aristotle, who perceived slavery as a natural phenomenon and within the order of things, though he was neither a racist nor a Christian.
In terms of slavery, the Bible sets its origin in Genesis on the flood surviving and rescued Abraham, who turned his grandson Canaan into a slave due to what would be called today a misdemeanour of Ham, Cannan's father (Gen 9:25). But at least some translations of the Bible speak today of nations and no longer of tribes in the context of the apparently Bible-endorsed concept of slavery;
- Leviticus 25:44-46 says:
44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,"
while the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the USAmerican Voice of America (VOA) and Anglo-American NGOs, e.g. while reporting on true slaves taken or rescued from a certain people, cattle-rustling or warfare between peoples etc., persist stubbornly to not speak of nations but of 'tribes'.
This despite the fact that today only in some few places, such as North America and India, 'tribes' are unfortunately still polities, that - due to the failure by the respective state governances to abolish or change the colonial laws - have been granted only via the use of the term 'tribe' their recognition to exist. In these jurisdictions the Indigenous Peoples therefore can only realize or access e.g. an earlier granted legal recognition by the state, by allowing to be called the xyz 'tribe' and thereby to be seen as an ethnic entity with a certain, but mostly limited autonomy or to secure for themselves the one or the other benefits like natural resource use, subsidies etcetera.
Therefore the Indigenous Nations of North America, whose people are falsely called "Indians" and 'tribes', are today still struggling to get rid of the colonial system, including the term 'tribe'. So far with little success, since the USA, who voted together with Canada, New Zealand against the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights, still confines native Americans to live on their "reservations", which legally are factual prison camps into which the peoples were driven by the colonial government of the day and remain there under the Union of the corporate "United States of America". Under the constitution of that governance the native Americans have - while living on these reservations - no rights whatsoever: No constitutional protection, no freedom of speech, no privacy. The native American people are not protected by the Bill of Rights in dealing with "tribal governments", that often have been masterminded with its members placed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs into the 'tribal' governance by means of corruption, while the people have no access to the federal courts for redress of wrongs done to them by such a fake 'tribal government'. James Madison, a founding father of the U. S. Constitution, described the accumulation of all of these powers in the same hands as "the very definition of tyranny" and also mainstream non-native USAmericans must realize that their constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't postulate real rights. These 'rights' represent nothing but the granting of temporary privileges, which can be taken away at any time.
This situation persists of course without the actual consent of the governed, though mainstream has been coerced onto loving the modern forms of slavery as long as there is food on the table, clothes in the wardrobe and a roof over their heads. The disciples of modern states are used to have a government, but the governed tend to forget that thereby they gave room for the development of the modern now rapidly globalized dictatorships.
Thereby the modern governments have all grown far beyond the consent of the governed, though the Doctrine of the universal and inalienable Natural Rights outlines very clearly - based on the fact that humans are born equally free and therefore have natural human equality - that the right to free life, liberty and self-created property are the highest priorities in all versions of the Natural Law in combination with the right to personality and human dignity. But propaganda always works best when those who are being manipulated are confident that they are acting on their own free will.
Apart from the coerced legal and financial "advantages" bearing use of the derogatory term 'tribe' in present day USA or India, a psychological phenomenon has been observed in First Nations, whereby people from oppressed minority First Nations sometimes even prefer to be called by the most derogatory nick-names for their people, given to them by the former or present-day overlords or by mainstream society or neighbours, rather than to be classified and to be grouped just into 'tribal peoples'. But to this they only concede in order to avoid that their uniqueness of origin and cultural traditions would no longer be recognized as unique - a form of self-segregation.
A very specific example is that of the "bushmen", the aboriginal and very First Nation of the very continent which bears the cradle of modern humans, who adapted to be called the San, though this term means forager (from the Khoe word ‘saan’), outsider or allegedly even 'thief' in the language of the Korana, having its origin in the Nama language word of the KhoeKhoe "Saa", a pejorative by which the Korana and the /Xam bushmen referred to each other. The term 'San', which these first peoples sometimes even prefer over the term bushman (or its Afrikaans [Afrikanized Dutch] equivalent, "Boesman"), is so common with the not fully abolished Apartheid regime of South Africa and misguided tourists that right now it is in the process to be even enshrined into new legislation in South Africa. Nobody seems to have the will or the capacity to clean up all that mess and to find a common term from one of the original language-dialects of the very First Nation on Earth still surviving. It is believed that this persistent confusion is part of the ongoing genocide against the very First Nation and the most ancient people still alive.
Likewise the re-fashioned term 'tribe' became specifically derogatory, because people believed (without duly scrutinizing it first) that 'having a state' is necessarily superior to 'not having a state' (- of course understood in its western form). This has very unfortunately to do with the centralizing concept that emanated from the early musings of Hegel - the German philosopher, whose philosophy was subsequently accepted in England far more than the English confess.
Wanbli Ohitika (Great Eagle), the great thinker and Oglala Lakota patriot from the Lakota Nation, who was born on November 10, 1939 in the Pine Ridge 'Reservation' in South Dakota, where on October 22, 2012 he also passed on, stated in his famous speech at the 1980 Black Hill Gathering:
"Hegel finished the process of secularizing theology - and that is put in his own terms - he secularized the religious thinking through which Europe understood the universe. The European materialist tradition of despiritualizing the universe is very similar to the mental process which goes into dehumanizing another person. And who seems most expert at dehumanizing other people? And why? Soldiers who have seen a lot of combat learn to do this to the enemy before going back into combat. Murderers do it before going out to commit murder. Nazi SS guards did it to concentration camp inmates. Cops do it. Corporation leaders do it to the workers they send into uranium mines and steel mills. Politicians do it to everyone in sight. And what the process has in common for each group doing the dehumanizing is that it makes it all right to kill and otherwise destroy other people. One of the Christian commandments says, “Thou shalt not kill,” at least not humans, so the trick is to mentally convert the victims into non-humans. Then you can proclaim violation of your own commandment as a virtue." - Wanbli Ohitika was given the name Russell Charles Means and accepted to be called the 'The True American Man'. The event in the Black Hills had a reason: The stolen lands and that even the Obama Administration still has failed to give back the land of the Black Hills to the Lakota, though on July 23, 1980, in the case United States v. Sioux [sic!] Nation of Indians, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Black Hills were illegally taken by the federal government and that remuneration of the initial offering price plus interest — nearly $106 million — be paid. The Lakota refuse that settlement until today as they want the Black Hills returned to them. The money remains in an interest-bearing account, which as of 2015 amounted to over $1.2 billion, but the Lakota still refuse to take the money. They believe that accepting the settlement would allow the U.S. government to justify taking ownership of the Black Hills. In 2012, United Nations Special Rapporteur James Anaya recommended the return of the Black Hills to the Lakota. [The term 'Sioux" is a derogatory term derived from a French corruption of an Ojibway word meaning snake.]
The present trend to decentralized structures of governance in formerly colonial state-conglomerates on the one hand and the globalist new world governance ideas thereby stand clearly opposed to each other. However, and to follow Hegel: Asymmetric recognition in this way is authority without responsibility, on the side of the Master, and responsibility without authority, on the side of the Slave. That this conundrum can only be overcome with a major push has been made clear by the uprising of people with egalitarian spirit during the French Revolution.
Peaceful indigenous nations, however, will just walk away from all those, who still use the term 'tribe' for them and who thereby reveal their true face as being imperialist to the bone - despite their sweet-talk or "pro-tribe" fund-raising actions.
'Tribe' as tool of racism and 'final solutions'
It is not clear to many that the racial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times under Dutch rule. Apartheid as an officially structured policy was introduced only following the general election of 1948 though its roots go much further back. The origin of the written South African Apartheid Laws can be found first in the USAmerican legislation dealing with "Indian Affairs" and second in German Nazi race laws, which were likewise copied to a great extend from the USAmerican originals and with perfidy perfected as we know. However the true origins in modern times are British and in former times can be found with the ancient Greeks and Romans, who both learned from the Etruskans.
The English terms "detention, concentration or extermination camps" (or "death camps") are said to have originated in the 'reconcentrados' (re-concentration camps) set up by the Spanish military in Cuba during the Ten Years' War (1868 -1878), the Cuban War for Independence (1895 -1898), and by the United States during the Philippine -American War (1899 -1902). But it also saw wider use during the Second Boer War (1899 - 1902), when the British operated such camps in South Africa for interning the Blacks and the Boers of Dutch origin. There the Brits built a total of 64 tented camps for black Afrikans and 45 for Boer internees. Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, the British sent 25,630 overseas. The vast majority of Boers remaining in the local camps were women and children and it must not be elaborated what happened then.
However, it is often omitted but fact that such concentration camps were set up in the USA already when the Indian Removal Act of 1830, a formal deportation policy, was enacted in the federal state, after having forced the Indigenous Peoples to sign malicious treaties. US-President van Buren (of Dutch origin) ordered the enforced provision of these treaties. The forced eviction of 18,000 Cherokee was one of these enforced removals and caused the death of 4,000 people in the winter 1938/39. This rounding up, detention, transfer and indirect massacre is known today as the 'Trail of Tears' and the 'reservation' into which the survivors were cramped was in no way short of a situation in a extermination camp to pave way for the "superior white race" to steal their lands.
The abolition of slavery was only a further stepping stone of British imperialism, guided thereafter by the believe that though these people shouldn't be traded and kept as slaves, the need to "civilize" them was not just an economic calculus. It is a sad joke of history that the British, the only Europeans who never got civilized by the Romans, used the civilization argument to continue the slaughter. Missionaries stepped into the shoes of the conquistadores and the British missionary George Augusts Robinson was the first who succeeded in the extermination of a whole race and indigenous nation - the aboriginal Tasmanians - the Parlevar or Palawa. Within a generation the whole nation of the Palawa nation, who had existed healthy and in prosperity for at least 10,000 years on their land, died out with the death of a childless woman called Truganini in 1876.
The need to cover and - if not possible - to justify and to exculpate such genocide, massacres and the mass-murders in the remotest corners of the British Empire created the origin of "scientific racism", fostered by the Scotsman Robert Knox, who coined the infamous sentences: "Race is everything: ...The Saxon [Anglo-Saxons] race will never tolerate them [the "lower" races] - never amalgamate - never be at peace." His US-American counterpart Samuel Morton likewise subscribed to the thoughts of Charles Darwin and his followers, the so-called "Social-Darwinists" - like Thomas Henry Huxley [("Darwin's Bulldog") and later his grandson Sir Julian Huxley - a declared eugenicist who was Secretary of the Zoological Society of London, the first Director of UNESCO, and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund (now Worldwide Fund for Nature - WWF), who today again stands accused of genocide of "tribes" by means of "conservation"] or Herbert Spencer ("Survival of the Fittest!").
But it was the Briton Henry Laing Gordon who had formed the core of the colonial eugenic movement. Gordon was very much an accepted member of the colonial ruling class, which had formed the Eugenics Society in London. In 1931, shortly after Gordon published an article in which "he argued that there was a high level of inherited, innate mental deficiency, or amentia, in Kenya, which caused inferior intelligence in the 'East African native'" he became president of the Kenyan branch of the British Medical Association and formed in July 1933, the Kenya Society for the Study of Race Improvement (KSSRI). During a specially granted visit in London, Gordon gave a paper to the African Circle at Chatham House (which was later published in their Journal of African Society), that made the case that Afrikan brains did not have the same cellular durability as European ones. Hence, this led him to the amazing conclusion (based only on one dissection), that the demands placed on Afrikan minds by European education and religion led to a type of mental collapse (dementia praecox) that was not apparent in "raw natives." This outright dismissal of the potential of the Afrikan mindset for civilization meant that the Kenyan eugenicists, contrary to their counterparts in the metropole, veered clear of the traditional "solutions" provided by negative or positive eugenics, because the "supposed incapacity" in this case was located in the entire Afrikan population rendering such policies impractical - leaving only extermination as final solution. One might wonder if Kenyans still remember this when they sip their Gin and Tonic prepared with GORDON'S Gin in their neo-colonial offices of governance or in their chairs at local buildings of masterminding Anglo-American corporations.
Such publications of the British eugenicists, who were the origin and core of the vice started by Francis Galton, a nephew of Charles Darwin, did provide also the ideological base on which then the US-American eugenicists built their well-financed global impact, despite the fact that at least the Roman Catholic Church through Pope Pius XI condemned in December 1930 eugenics in his encyclical Casti Connubii, in which he declared that the spirit was paramount over the body and the equality of human souls regardless of material defect. Contrary to the British fathers of eugenics, who always were in competition with the Anglican Church for the better arguments to subdue or kill indigenous peoples and thereby short in own cash, their US-American students and followers suddenly received huge financial support from white supremacist circles and sources like the Rockefeller Foundation, who feared the impact of the first large wave of immigrants in the USA would be a threat to the survival of the Caucasian race. The US-American Institute for Eugenics under Charles Benedict Davenport, who had founded the 'Eugenics Record Office' in 1910, then achieved a global hype - discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits ("positive" eugenics). However, the only sure method to "discourage reproduction" is death and thereby euthanasia always swings together with eugenics and cases of widespread, serial and systematic forced sterilizations without consent or knowledge of the victims still come to light every year not just concerning China/Tibet and India but also for the USA.
The rapid Anglo-American development of thoughts on eugenics allowed the Spanish, the French, the Belgian, the Dutch and the Italians to find justifications for their own colonial misdeeds and outright genocides and became at last a seed to a changing thought and behaviour in the German view of things. The Germans then did it systematically and with perfection.
The first and most determined German copy of the British concentration or death camps was - among others - established on Shark Island in today's Namibia during the days of the short German 'Deutsch Sued-West' (Afrika) sting, with the extermination of mainly the Nama as task. These Nama people had survived the German genocide against the people of the Herero and the Hottentot during the years 1904 to 1908 and then around 3,500 people of their people were brought to Shark Island, where they died. There then the German Eugen Fischer started his eugenicist studies to become in Berlin the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics - a post which he held from 1927 until 1942 - and was in addition appointed rector of the Frederick William University of Berlin by Adolf Hitler in 1933 after Fischer joined the Nazi party.
Davenport meanwhile had founded the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations (IFEO) in 1925, and made Eugen Fischer in 1927 the chairman of the 'Commission on Bastardization and Miscegenation'. Fischer's studies on the so-called Rehobother Baster (bastards) - a community deriving from Dutch Bures and Nama 'tribal' people in today's Namibia, with which he tried to prove that such mixed races always lead to degradation and that the black genes would be dominant to those of whites, "qualified" him for that position. Davenport aspired to found a World Institute for Miscegenations, and "was working on a 'world map' of the 'mixed-race areas, which he introduced for the first time at a meeting of the IFEO in Munich in 1928."
The belief in the blond and blue eyed master race - called "Aryan" or "Nordic" race - was thereby boosted by the US Science of "Eugenics". The race concept was published by Madison Grant, the founder of the New York Zoo in the beginning of the 20th century in his book: The Passing of The Great Race. Hitler read the book during his Landsberg prison time and in 1923 sent Grant a fan-letter, calling the book "his bible" and followed it to the point after coming to power. That these thoughts still are reflected by today's events became recently clear when a failed CIA operation to lead a section of the Aryan Yazidi minority of Iraq out of a combat zone of the new, again USAmerican-imposed war in the region, ended with headlines reading: "Dead blondes on a mountain top" and articles describing that the blond women had been abducted, raped and killed by ISIS hordes.
The Nazi Race Laws targeted not only the Jews, but also other "unwerte Menschen" (unworthy people) and the non-German Staemme" (Clans) of peoples like the gypsies (Sinti and Roma), who are as "Zigeuner" still discriminated against by the German Governance of Angela Merkel today, culminating in the recent deportation of thousands of Roma to Kosovo. The question, if the Roma are in any way descendants of the Romans stands disputed until further DNA research might confirm or reject various hypotheses; and thereby it is not sure if in their case the long shadows of the Roman empire and their tribulations came as the classic, idiomatic chicken home to roost. However, the head of the Romanian right-wing party "Partidul Romania Mare" (Greater Romania Party), Corneliu Vadim Tudor, likes to call himself the "Tribun" in old Roman and Nazi imperialist fashion and recent credible human rights reports claim that the unpunished "killing by shooting of Gypsies for fun" and like game actually does persist in Romania with impunity.
Though the German First Reich, also known as "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", did not have tribalistic laws, the Second Reich under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck fostered the upswing of German colonialism and with it the introduction of the Basic Laws (Grundgesetze) for the German Colonies degrading foreign nations of Indigenous Peoples into tax-paying local 'tribes' ("Staemme") within the colonial boundaries and under the German colonies or protectorates - a system copied from the British, who alone during their colonial rule of colonial British-India caused the untimely death of around 80 million people. Under the governance of Lord Litton [Vice-Roy (Plenipotentiary) of India (1876 - 1880)] the ideas of the survival of the fittest among the Indian "tribes" were used in 1876-78 as excuse to not help the people during an El-Nino triggered drought - 8 million Indian "tribal people" were left to die due to starvation and not helped, despite the full grain stores of the British Empire in India.. Under British rule over India a total of around 30 million people died of starvation or in British labour camps - a figure never mentioned by the British. The Third Reich of then Nazi Germany accelerated their discriminatory laws rapidly along these Anglo-American lines of thought and in 1934 the Nazis published their notorious racist Nuremberg Laws with around 6 million people killed as the still highly publicized result - so the official figures and cleansing Germany of Jews. This event at least is remembered by the public, while most of the other atrocities of Europeans are forgotten, including the fact that in 1492 - now over 520 years ago - the Spaniards expelled all Jews out of Spain, who didn't give in to forcibly convert to Catholicism
Likewise the Nazi laws were neither unique nor a first, since Germany was only the 33rd state in the world to introduce laws of "race hygiene". The First ones were California, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, followed by 27 other US States. German racist laws were published by Hitler himself in the US Journal "Eugenics Weekly" five months before they were released and then implemented in Germany. The Nazis, who had received frenetic applause in the USA for such "advancements", advertised those laws at home with the slogan: "We are not alone", followed by the 1927 US Supreme Court decision Buck vs. Bell: "It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
The USAmerican Eugenicist Charles M. Goethe in 1934 after returning from Germany wrote to the President of the USAmerican "Human Betterment Foundation" Ezra Seymour Gosney: "You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people."
In 1934 the SS (the Protection Squadron of the Nazi Party NSDAP called SturmStaffel, by then under Heinrich Himmler) was invited to present Germany's "Race Hygiene" at the meeting of the American Public Health Association in Pasadena, California, where the first such acts had been implemented earlier. By mid-1934, the SS had taken control of all concentration camps from the SA, and a new organization, the SS-Totenkopfverbaende (SS-TV with skull insignia) had been established as the SS Concentration Camp Service.
The USAmerican Rockefeller Foundation already had founded and was the main sponsor of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society's Institute for Anthropology, Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin Dahlem under its founder Eugen Fisher and leader Ottmar von Verschuer. At the institute a postgraduate of veterinary medicine was working on his doctoral thesis in human medicine. His name: Josef Mengele. The key sponsor Rockefeller was told in 1940 that "Dr. Mengele has joined the SS to continue his research in Auschwitz". Much has been written about what then followed, but the origins of the resulting terror and horrors are still kept out of the history books.
Though the Third Reich collapsed like the British and earlier the Roman Empire, the racist seeds are nowadays still planted by USAmerican ideology, which had culminated in a gigantic genocide committed against the native Americans long before the German holocaust hit the Jews. It found new ground in South-Africa and developed there with the enactment of the Apartheid laws - often copied word by word from the Bureau of Indian Affairs' applied laws and regulations as well as Nazi doctrines, whereby horrible acts were made lawful. This time these provisions were targeting the Bantu and other 'tribes'. In 1953, the South African government took full control over the education of Native Afrikans when it passed the Bantu Education Act. Until that time, schools - segregated and reserved for the so-called "Bantu(s)" (black South Afrikans of Bantu-speaking origin) - were run by missionary organizations. Sadly the German, Korean and USAmerican missionaries play today the same roles concerning Indigenous Peoples' Affairs in Indonesian-occupied West-Papua, in Thailand, the Philippines and elsewhere as the Dutch and Anglican missionaries in pre-Apartheid South-Africa or colonial Kenya.
With the official collapse of the Apartheid regime, which does not mean Apartheid as such wouldn't persist, only in the USA and in India as well as in Australia and Indonesia outright "'tribal' policies" remain today state sponsored. Indigenous and especially aboriginal peoples must see clearly that the struggle is far from over.
The still active Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (ILO No. 107) of the International Labour Organization (ILO), was a first attempt within the UN system "to codify international obligations of States in respect indigenous and 'tribal' (sic!) populations". It was the first international convention on the subject, and was adopted by ILO at the request of the UN-System, but is flawed. Then, with ILO Convention No.169, which is at least "a legally binding international instrument open to ratification and deals specifically with the rights of indigenous and 'tribal' (sic!) peoples", the governments tried to unsuccessfully cover the shortcomings. But until today, ILO169 has been ratified by only 20 state-parties of the 196 UN members. Both of these conventions are totally contradictory, since they recognize self-determination but then try to define who is who against and distinct from a "national population" of a UN member state. This is another clear indication for the fact that the term 'United Nations' is in itself a misnomer, because recognized real nation-states in the true sense are few while First Nations are not at all represented among that state-conglomerate and club of mostly war-formed countries which calls itself the UN.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIPS) was a compromise to end the 25 year long haggling in Geneva, accompanied by reluctance on the side of the UN and government officials and boosted by police stand-offs with activists who had occupied UN buildings. The finally adopted version of that declaration, which is not even a convention, is hardly worth the paper on which it is written, since it is not legally binding - even not for those states who voted it into existence or who have subsequently signed and ratified it. However, it marks a new era where at least the rights of indigenous peoples are spelled out, though in reality the 'tribes' referred to in the UN convention and DRIPS are protected nowhere.
To the contrary: In an apparently never ending upswing of the tribalistic mind-set, the neo-colonial, imperialist phalanx of the F-UK-US of today now bombs many 'tribes' to smitten - from Mali to the North of Pakistan - or stirs up intra- and inner-'tribal' warfare often serving as proxy-wars for the economic interests of the West in countries ranging from resource-rich states like the two and now almost three Sudans, Congo and Somalia to Iraq and Afghanistan as well as to the present hotbed in the Middle East. The public is misled by newspaper headlines like "US launches drone strikes against Islamic tribes in Northern Pakistan". At the centre of such escalating regional conflicts stirred up by a failed USAmerican foreign policy is also the fake 'tribe' of the "Kurds", which is now plotted against the true first nations of the region, who lived there in relative peace since the days of the first domestication of animal and plant-lifeforms around 12,000 years ago - when paradise was lost. But today the 'divide et impera "tribal-games" do no longer work neither in Yemen nor concerning ISIS, who just now is destroying the historic evidence of the beginning of the agricultural revolution in places like Nimrud. One might ask: On whose orders? That multi-national state-conglomerates naturally break up along ethnic and historical lines became obvious with the downfall of former Yugoslavia. However, that process to become a free people again in former Yugoslavia - often dubbed denigrating "balkanization" - into Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia, was accompanied by NATO warplanes and much bloodshed, which is haunting the now more free Croats, Serbs and other peoples of the area. That there is another way was shown by Lithuania. The Baltic Lithuanians had its own share of bloody history after being as Pagans attacked by the Teutones and other "Christians", after rising in own imperialist fashion and then collapsing by becoming part of the Soviet Union. But on 11 March 1990, the Lithuanians rose again, this time peacefully and walked away. A year before the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union, Lithuania became the first Soviet republic to declare itself independent, resulting in the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania.
High time to really reorient ourselves and to discard inhuman mind-sets
There are people who have been influenced by the ideas of thinkers ranging from J. J. Rousseau to E. Renan, who promoted the dangerous fabrication of the concept of 'civic nation'. This of course was best suited to assist the Western European settlers in their colonies, where they confiscated the indigenous nations' lands only to set up a 'new nation' for themselves and as per their own will. Sure it helped in the 'new world' to justify the deeds of the newcomers, where it was pretty much like 20 English, 8 Italians, 7 Germans, 4 Poles, 3 Spaniards, 3 Chinese, 2 Russians, 2 Greeks and 2 Jews declared that they were now 'Americans'.
If one views history from this catastrophic 'civic nation' viewpoint (and Renan was in this regard so much admired by Fascist and Plagiarist Benito Mussolini !), one of course cannot accept the concept of 'ethnic nation', as first and best expressed by German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte in his "Address to the German Nation" in a country which was at the time under French occupation, as the only state of a nation compatible with Humanity.
However, Fichte, whose philosophy somehow forms a bridge between the ideas of the famous thinker about morality Immanuel Kant and those of the German Idealist Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel remained still biased towards gender equality and the equality of the different strata of humankind and stayed trapped in racism - like John Locke too.
Johann Gottfried Herder then developed the philosophy of humanism further and emphasized that his conception of the nation encouraged true democracy (not what the Europeans and USAmericans or TPTB elsewhere have made today out if it) and the free self-expression of a people's identity. This is exactly what has to be revived again today as well as mutual respect and friendship among peoples and cultures - not "the-winner-takes-all"-style economic "co-operation" by warmongering "coalitions" or extortive "Unions".
However, the great German philosopher Friedrich Hoelderlin wrote already over 200 years ago (1796):
"If only someone would for once tell these people, whom God has forsaken, that everything is so imperfect among them only because they leave nothing pure uncorrupted, nothing sacred untouched by their coarse hands, that nothing thrives among them because they do not respect the root of all thriving, divine Nature; that live with them is stale and burdened with worries and full of cold, silent discord, because they scorn the Genius, who brings power and nobility into human endeavour, and serenity into suffering, and love and brotherhood to towns and houses. ...
And that too is why they are so afraid of death and, for the sake of their molluscan existence, bear every indignity, for they know nothing higher than the bungling job that they have made out of things."
Thereby the real nature of genuine peoples, and of their state, is not to be that of a 'tribe' under an extortive scheme of a master race, but that of the natural, ethnic nation, self-determined in their own ways within their own understanding and constitution. The only problem for the "democratic North" plus China is that such people could no longer be exploited.
In the Americas, Afrika, India, Oceania - as it had been "achieved" in Europe itself already earlier by those with the dominator-predator gene - the indigenous populations were at first decimated and then marginalized to such an extreme extent, that the new, 'civic nation' could finally be formed in those confiscated lands only to receive more migrants later on. What happened there is not much different to what still happens today in Afrika, the Middle East or Papua-New-Guinea, where the 'tribes', impoverished by global machinations, are ululating for the dollar and food contribution bringing "donors", with which they then are still corralled inside colonial boundaries or herded into 'Unions' (European Union, African Union, the North-American Union to come or the World Trade Union) by the new rounds of 'fratricidal' wars - be they economic (TAFTA/TTIP) or real (former Yugoslavia or Ukraine or Iraq and with Iran, Russia, China to come). In fact, it is the aberration of the 'civic nation' concept that has triggered all the global level wars over the past 200 years, and if not abolished will provide for new risks and still trigger even more wars in future.
Surely any language is dynamic and should be able to develop, but such development must evolve, enrich and enhance language and not devolve and distort it or bury the actual meaning of words while a modern interpretation is spread by mainstream media to cover up for a still persisting hidden agenda of those in the know.
The term 'Tribe' can not even be used any more for collaborative efforts as Daniel Quinn tried to describe in 'Beyond Civilization', because his "Tribe of Crow" - a collective running of a local newspaper on equal, cooperative terms - lacks the most important part of the real 'tribal' concept: The visible or hidden ruler or governing body deciding what's good for their human livestock while as true parasites sucking the lifeblood out of their 'tribe' up. Also Quinn’s idealistic collective is therefore not a tribe - as he termed it, and neither can the true ethnic nations of genuine peoples be called 'tribes'.
Demand and Duty
For starters and to avoid the listed negative implications of the seriously discouraged use of the term 'tribe' today, the respectful and recognizing terms: Indigenous Peoples, First Nation, and nation with its clans or ethnic groups is advised and accepted. Other terms used and appropriate to refer to indigenous populations are: aboriginal, native, original, original nations, first peoples and First Nation, nation per se as well as the hereditary owners in indigenous law.
The best way, however, to respectfully address people from First Nations and/or indigenous and especially aboriginal peoples, is to use the very name these peoples, who are true nations in the best definition of international law and understanding, use for themselves. Such is today also part of their internationally recognized and inalienable right to self-determination.
And for those, who believe that an English term shall never just die, one hint: Use it only for what it really stands for: A group of enslaved, UN-free people or of macerated tax-payers, of down-trodden state-subjects under the rule of the still persisting brutal regimes, or as community of "insurance" as well as the often abused pension payers or for the brainwashed 'tribes' of the modern party-line electorate. There the political concept comes back to its origin and mostly only three political 'tribes' are allowed to exist today: The pseudo-conservative, the pseudo-liberal and the pseudo-socialist wings remain for the "tribal" members of the tax-paying, modern slaves to choose from, though it really doesn't matter any longer for the ruling one-percent what those then vote for. Actually today the whole population of many nations in many states is degraded into one tax-paying 'tribe' - with VAT (so-called value-added tax) being its most criminal form of extortion by governance.
After around 12,000 years of development of so-called modern mankind into the wrong direction, which began when farmer Cain murdered sheep-tamer Abel after their father, the hunter-gatherer Adam, who had lived in harmony with nature, had been driven out of paradise and after at least over 2,500 years of suffering under the imperialist mind-set of the most inhuman offspring of Cain, which developed in imperialist Rome and Europe, humanity must awaken again and this slaughter of the innocent based on the perceived racial divide must end.
Let us therefore and as a first step just put an end to cultural imperialism as well as to all other forms of discrimination and let us abolish the term 'tribe' with highest priority. This is everyone's duty, because the perception of 'tribe' is one of the most severe root-causes of modern evil.
With new evidence emerging that North-American Natives sailed back with the Vikings to Iceland and that New-Zealand was settled by Nordic Europeans long before the Maori of Polynesia - considered to be the indigenous people - arrived there, many will realize that in fact we are all One, but still have the right to self-determination as to who we are and therefore we safely can abolish the denigrating terms 'tribe' and 'tribal'.
The fact that all modern humans (homo sapiens) actually just have one Afrikan origin and therefore we are all Afrikans must permeate the consciousness of everyone reading these lines. The genetic mutations, which occurred in a larger scale in people with likewise Afrikan descend around Lake Baikal led only to the different forms of Albinism as we find them today in people stereotyped as "Caucasian". From there admixtures created what some term as the "Arabs", who are just descendants of Afrikan kingdoms of the Saudi Peninsula mixed with people with the Caucasian trait of Albinism. We are all "Black", we are all of Afrikan descend and the visual difference is just based on Albinism. Sure, different nations developed different cultures, and distinct physical features of the varying phenotypes were fostered more in one culture while they could not procreate in others, but that does not make people really different in terms of the cruel race policies of the supremacists and eugenicists.
We always should also remember that North is Not Up! and any oppressive governance of any imperialist "civilization" must know that it is a supra-organism with a very limited lifespan and a pre-programmed collapse!
Starting to think and to live along these lines will bring peace among peoples and people, because the realization of the basic unity combined with one's respect for people hailing from and maintaining different cultures as well as the evolving consciousness of unity in diversity will create harmony and stability in freedom.
With the words of Wanbli Ohitika (Brave Eagle):
Freedom means you are never in a hurry. Think about that the next time you have to get to class. You are never in a hurry, and never is a long time. Freedom means you are free to be responsible. No one has any rules or regulations for you to follow because you are a responsible individual: responsible for your own behavior, responsible for your generations, responsible for your Mother the Earth, responsible for every living being, and responsible for the universe. That’s what freedom means. Those are the things that I have found out in my life about freedom, because I’ve lived it. I’ve been free.
Much remains to be done for every human on Earth to root out the dissonances and to be free. To abolish the term 'tribe' and 'tribal' as well as the supremacists and imperialist concept with goes with it, is a good start for all humans on their way to a renewed humanity a travel full of enlightening encounters and positive adventures. Go for it!.
( © pjb/exclusively for ECOTERRA v4 2017, v3 2016, v2 2015, v1 2014)
(*) The author thanks H.E. the late 'Mwalimu' Julius Nyerere, the late Prof. Ali Mazrui, the late Wanbli Ohitika (Brave Eagle of Lakota), late Prof. Edward Moringe Sokoine, late Prof. Konrad Lorenz, late Prof. Wangari Mathai, late Prof. Heine, late Prof. and late Prof. Martin Heidegger, as well as Prof. Noam Chomsky, Prof. Antal Festitics, Prof. Hartmut Gossow and the late Senator Dr. Albrecht Merz as well as the many peers, co-researchers, students and people of all walks of life, who enlightened the author with their greater knowledge and their vast experience during critical discussions. Special thanks go to all indigenous and specifically those aboriginal peoples, whom I had the chance and honour to meet, who welcomed me into their midst, and who recognized that we are One - specifically the real people with whom I lived and continue to live in their territories and natural environment and who shared with me the history of their people and their deepest insights. Their trust and love provides me with the strength to continue the struggle and to stand on their side - against all odds.