(no subject)

[teddywolf]

Today I was in my Imperialism class. The discussion went around the pre-modern empires and the notion of tribe. Historical tribe, by my professor's definition, is bound by bonds of blood. He brought up the Jews as the first historical pre-modern empire and, among other things, said that this was based on Jewish tribal notions which had no conversions until the modern era.

I decided I had to speak up at this point. I mentioned we had a strong history of conversions, even though they were less common before the modern era. I brought up Ruth, I brought up the Khazars, and mentioned that a number of converts were notable in our history. He then said, "Then why are you a tribe? You can't be G-d's Chosen People by blood while allowing others to join your tribe, it's not logical." I mentioned the distinction between religiously Jewish and Jewish by birth; he said the notions were still incompatible.

Do bear in mind I like my professor. He makes me think and is academically rigorous.

His definition of tribe is as something immutable, you are born to it or not, or might get forced into it by conflict.

I want to present to him examples of tribes that accepted in outsiders to become "of the tribe". I will be doing some research into this because I want to present it to him - yes, I have been looking. If any of you know of an historical example, off the top of your head, something not involving a marriage or slavery, I would appreciate a pointer. It could be somebody joining a Native American tribe, or brought into a particular African tribe, or a Chinese family, a Germanic village, what-have-you - in fact, the more diverse the better. I want to show that a tribe may have been primarily about blood but also could be something a person chose and, under exceptional circumstances, be accepted into.

Please feel free to signal boost this.

Comments

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Herman Lehmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Lehmann) leaps to mind. He was captured as a child and raised by Apaches. He became a Apache brave as an adult, but fled the band he lived with after he killed a medicine man. He then went to the Comanches and was adopted as an Comanche.

Your professor's definition of tribalism is a false one, based on incorrect 19th century ideas of race. It certainly wasn't true of the original three tribes of Romans, from whom we get the very word "tribe." Those tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe), the Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres, were groups of families who lived in the same area but who were not -- in general -- closely related.

It is true that there are identifiable ethnic groups which are strongly endogamous (only allowing marriage within the group) and which have thus come to be seen as a tribe using that 19th century definition. But as tribes go these are the exception rather than the rule. Most historical tribes have been endogamous, continuously bringing new genetic stock into the tribe via intermarriage and adoption from outside the tribe.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Typo alert - I think the second time you mean "exogamous".

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes. Thank you.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

I do that all too often - not the kind of typo where your fingers hit the wrong keys (well, I do that too) but the kind where your brain pops out entirely the wrong word.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the clarification :-)

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

I'm going to need to look for some citations but you have given me a good starting point. I may want to talk to the local history or anthropology department.