The term tribe is used in many different contexts to refer to a category of human social group. The predominant worldwide usage of the term in English is in the discipline of anthropology. Its definition is contested, in part due to conflicting theoretical understandings of social and kinship structures, and also reflecting the problematic application of this concept to extremely diverse human societies. The concept is often contrasted by anthropologists with other social and kinship groups, being hierarchically larger than a lineage or clan, but smaller than a chiefdom, ethnicity, nation or state. These terms are similarly disputed. In some cases tribes have legal recognition and some degree of political autonomy from national or federal government, but this legalistic usage of the term may conflict with anthropological definitions.
In the United States, Native American tribes are legally considered to have "domestic dependent nation" status within the territorial United States, with a government-to-government relationship with the federal government.
The modern English word tribe stems from Middle English tribu, which ultimately derives from Latin tribus. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it remains unclear if this form is the result of a borrowing from a Romance language source (such as Old French tribu) or if the form is a result of borrowing directly from Latin (the Middle English plural tribuz 1250 may be a direct representation of Latin plural tribūs). Modern English tribe may also be a result of a common pattern wherein English borrows nouns directly from Latin and drops suffixes, including -us. Latin tribus is generally held by linguists to be a compound formed from two elements: tri- 'three' and bhu, bu, fu, a verbal root meaning 'to be'.
Latin tribus is held to derive from the Proto-Indo-European compound *tri-dʰh₁u/o- ('rendered in three, tripartite division'; compare with Umbrian trifu 'trinity, district', Sanskrit trídha 'threefold').
Considerable debate has accompanied efforts to define and characterize tribes. In the popular imagination, tribes reflect a primordial social structure from which all subsequent civilizations and states developed. Anthropologist Elman Service presented a system of classification for societies in all human cultures, based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:
Tribes are therefore considered to be a political unit formed from an organisation of families (including clans and lineages) based on social or ideological solidarity. Membership of a tribe may be understood as being based on factors such as kinship ("clan"), ethnicity ("race"), language, dwelling place, political group, religious beliefs, oral tradition and/or cultural practices.
Archaeologists continue to explore the development of pre-state tribes. Current research suggests that tribal structures constituted one type of adaptation to situations providing plentiful yet unpredictable resources. Such structures proved flexible enough to coordinate production and distribution of food in times of scarcity, without limiting or constraining people during times of surplus. Anthropologist Morton Fried argued in 1967 that bands organized into tribes in order to resist the violence and exploitation of early kingdoms and states. He wrote:
In fact, there is no absolute necessity for a tribal stage as defined by Sahlins and Service, no necessity, that is, for such a stage to appear in the transit from a single settlement with embedded political organization, to a complex-state structured polity. Such a developmental process could have gone on within a unit that we may conceptualize as a city-state, such a unit as Jericho might have become in its later stages … tribalism can be viewed as reaction to the formation of complex political structure rather than a necessary preliminary stage in its evolution.
The term "tribe" was in common use in the field of anthropology until the late 1950s and 1960s. The continued use of the term has attracted controversy among anthropologists and other academics active in the social sciences with scholars of anthropological and ethnohistorical research challenging the utility of the concept. In 1970, anthropologist J. Clyde Mitchell wrote:
Despite the membership boundaries for a tribe being conceptually simple, in reality they are often vague and subject to change over time. In his 1975 study, The Notion of the Tribe, Fried provided numerous examples of tribes that encompassed members who spoke different languages and practiced different rituals, or who shared languages and rituals with members of other tribes. Similarly, he provided examples of tribes in which people followed different political leaders, or followed the same leaders as members of other tribes. He concluded that tribes in general are characterized by fluid boundaries, heterogeneity and dynamism, and are not parochial.
Part of the difficulty with the term is that it seeks to construct and apply a common conceptual framework across diverse cultures and peoples. Different anthropologists studying different peoples therefore draw conflicting conclusions about the nature, structure and practices of tribes. Writing on the Kurdish peoples, anthropologist Martin van Bruinessen argued, "the terms of standard anthropological usage, 'tribe', 'clan' and 'lineage' appear to be a straitjacket that ill fits the social reality of Kurdistan".
There are further negative connotations of the term "tribe" that have reduced its use. Writing in 2013, scholar Matthew Ortoleva noted that "like the word Indian, [t]ribe is a word that has connotations of colonialism." Survival International says "It is important to make the distinction between tribal and indigenous because tribal peoples have a special status acknowledged in international law as well as problems in addition to those faced by the wider category of indigenous peoples."
Few tribes today remain isolated from the development of the modern state system. Tribes have lost their legitimacy to conduct traditional functions, such as tithing, delivering justice and defending territory, with these being replaced by states functions and institutions, such as taxation, law courts and the military. Most have suffered decline and loss of cultural identity. Some have adapted to the new political context and transformed their culture and practices in order to survive, whilst others have secured legal rights and protections.
Fried proposed that most surviving tribes do not have their origin in pre-state tribes, but rather in pre-state bands. Such "secondary" tribes, he suggested, developed as modern products of state expansion. Bands comprise small, mobile, and fluid social formations with weak leadership. They do not generate surpluses, pay no taxes, and support no standing army. Fried argued that secondary tribes develop in one of two ways. First, states could set them up as means to extend administrative and economic influence in their hinterland, where direct political control costs too much. States would encourage (or require) people 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 neighboring states (the so-called tribes of the United States or British India provide good examples of this). The British favored the label "aboriginal tribe" for some communities.
India adopted a republican constitution in 1950, after three years of debate in its Constituent Assembly. During the debate, Jaipal Singh, a member of Munda tribe from Central India advocated for special provisions for the 'Adibasi' -- a translation into Hindi of 'aboriginal'. His arguments proved persuasive. These communities were to have seats in the legislatures and positions in government employment 'reserved' for them. Each of the assembly members prepared a list of communities that deserved special protections. These names were listed in a "Schedule" (appendix) to the Constitution. So these came to be called the 'Scheduled Tribes', often abbreviated to ST.
Second, bands could form "secondary" tribes as a means to defend against state expansion. Members of bands would form more clearly bounded and centralized polities, because such polities could begin producing surpluses that could support a standing army that could fight against states, and they would have a leadership that could co-ordinate economic production and military activities.
In the Native American tribes of North America, tribes are considered sovereign nations, that have retained their sovereignty or been granted legal recognition by the federal government.
Owlapps.net - since 2012 - Les chouettes applications du hibou
Neno kabila hutumiwa katika muktadha mbalimbali kurejelea jamii ya kikundi cha kijamii cha kibinadamu. Matumizi makubwa ya ulimwengu wa neno hilo katika Kiingereza ni katika taaluma ya anthropolojia. Ufafanuzi wake umepingwa, kwa sehemu kwa sababu ya uelewa wa nadharia unaopingana wa miundo ya kijamii na ukoo, na pia unaonyesha matumizi ya tatizo la dhana hii kwa jamii tofauti sana za kibinadamu. Kwa kawaida, nadharia hii inatofautishwa na jamii na vikundi vingine vya kijamii na vya ukoo, ikiwa ni kubwa zaidi kuliko ukoo au ukoo, lakini ndogo kuliko mkuu, kabila, taifa au serikali. Maneno hayo pia yanapingwa. Katika baadhi ya kesi makabila yana utambuzi wa kisheria na kiwango fulani cha uhuru wa kisiasa kutoka kwa serikali ya kitaifa au shirikisho, lakini matumizi haya ya kisheria ya neno hili yanaweza kupingana na ufafanuzi wa anthropolojia. Katika Marekani, makabila ya Wenyeji wa Asili wa Amerika yanachukuliwa kisheria kuwa na hadhi ya "taifa linalotegemea ndani" ndani ya eneo la Marekani, na uhusiano wa serikali kwa serikali na serikali ya shirikisho. Neno la kisasa la Kiingereza kabila linatokana na Kiingereza cha Kati tribu, ambayo hatimaye inatokana na Kilatini tribus. "Kulingana na kamusi ya Kiingereza ya Oxford, bado haijulikani ikiwa fomu hii ni matokeo ya kukopa kutoka kwa chanzo cha lugha ya Kiromani (kama vile Kifaransa cha Kale tribu) au ikiwa fomu ni matokeo ya kukopa moja kwa moja kutoka Kilatini (Middle Kiingereza wingi tribuz 1250 inaweza kuwa uwakilishi wa moja kwa moja wa Kilatini wingi tribus)." Kabila la Kiingereza cha kisasa pia linaweza kuwa matokeo ya muundo wa kawaida ambapo Kiingereza kinakopa majina moja kwa moja kutoka Kilatini na kuacha viambishi, ikiwa ni pamoja na -us. "Tribes ya Kilatini kwa ujumla huchukuliwa na wanalimi kuwa kiunganishi kilichoundwa na vipengele viwili: tri- ""tatu"" na bhu, bu, fu, mzizi wa neno unaomaanisha ""kuwa.""" "Tribes ya Kilatini inahesabiwa kuwa inatokana na kiunganishi cha Proto-Indo-European * tri-dh1u-o- (""iliyotolewa katika tatu, mgawanyiko wa tatu"; linganisha na Umbrian trifu ""utatu, wilaya", Sanskrit trísa ""threefold")."" Mazungumzo mengi yamefuatana na jitihada za kufafanua na kufafanua makabila. Katika mawazo ya watu wengi, makabila huonyesha muundo wa kijamii wa awali ambao ustaarabu na majimbo yote yaliyofuata yalitokana nayo. Mtaalamu wa jamii Elman Service alitoa mfumo wa uainishaji wa jamii katika tamaduni zote za kibinadamu, kulingana na mageuzi ya usawa wa kijamii na jukumu la serikali. "Kwa hiyo, makabila yanachukuliwa kuwa ""kiungo cha kisiasa kilichoundwa kutokana na shirika la familia (ikiwa ni pamoja na makabila na ukoo) kulingana na mshikamano wa kijamii au wa kiitikadi.""" Uanachama wa kabila unaweza kueleweka kama msingi wa mambo kama vile ukoo ("kabila"), ukoo ("mbegu"), lugha, mahali pa kuishi, kikundi cha kisiasa, imani za kidini, utamaduni wa mdomo na au mazoea ya kitamaduni. Wataalamu wa vitu vya kale wanaendelea kuchunguza jinsi makabila yaliyokuwapo kabla ya serikali kuanzishwa yalivyoendelea. Utafiti wa sasa unaonyesha kwamba miundo ya kikabila ilikuwa aina moja ya marekebisho kwa hali zinazotoa rasilimali nyingi lakini zisizoweza kutabiriwa. Miundo hiyo ilithibitika kuwa rahisi kutosha kuratibu uzalishaji na usambazaji wa chakula katika nyakati za upungufu, bila kuwazuia watu wakati wa ziada. Mwananthropolojia Morton Fried aliandika katika kitabu chake cha 1967 kwamba watu walipanga makundi ya watu ili wapigane na jeuri na utumiaji wa falme na mataifa ya kale. "Hata hivyo, hakuna haja ya hatua ya kikabila kama ilivyofafanuliwa na Sahlins na Service, yaani, hakuna haja ya hatua kama hiyo kuonekana katika mpito kutoka makazi moja na shirika la kisiasa iliyoingizwa, kwa serikali tata iliyoundwa.""" "Mchakato huo wa maendeleo ungeweza kuwa umeendelea ndani ya kitengo ambacho tunaweza kukifikiria kama mji-dola, kitengo kama vile Yeriko ambacho kingeweza kuwa katika hatua zake za baadaye... tribalism inaweza kuonekana kama athari ya kuundwa kwa muundo tata wa kisiasa badala ya hatua ya awali muhimu katika mageuzi yake. """ "Jina la kabila lilitumiwa sana katika anthropolojia hadi miaka ya 1950 na 1960."" Matumizi ya neno hilo yamechochea mabishano kati ya wananthropolojia na wasomi wengine wanaofanya kazi katika sayansi ya kijamii na wasomi wa utafiti wa anthropolojia na ethnohistorical wanapinga matumizi ya dhana hiyo. "Kama ilivyoelezwa na J. Clyde Mitchell, ""Licha ya mipaka ya uanachama wa kabila kuwa rahisi kwa dhana, kwa kweli mara nyingi ni isiyo wazi na inaweza kubadilika kwa muda.""" Katika utafiti wake wa 1975 The Notion of the Tribe, Fried alitoa mifano mingi ya makabila ambayo yalijumuisha wanachama ambao walizungumza lugha tofauti na kutekeleza desturi tofauti, au ambao walishiriki lugha na desturi na wanachama wa makabila mengine. Kwa mfano, katika makabila fulani, watu walifuata viongozi tofauti wa kisiasa au viongozi wa makabila mengine. Alikamilisha kwamba makabila kwa ujumla yana sifa ya mipaka ya kioevu, kutofautiana na nguvu, na si ya parokia. Sehemu ya ugumu na neno hilo ni kwamba inatafuta kujenga na kutumia mfumo wa kawaida wa dhana katika tamaduni na watu tofauti. Kwa hiyo, wananthropolojia mbalimbali wanaochunguza watu tofauti-tofauti hufikia mikataa inayopingana kuhusu asili, muundo, na mazoea ya makabila. "Kutokana na hali hiyo, Martin van Bruyensen, mtaalamu wa jamii ya watu wa Kurdish, alisema: ""Masharti ya matumizi ya kawaida ya anthropolojia, 'kabila', 'kabila' na'mzazi' yanaonekana kuwa kanzu ya nguvu ambayo haifai hali halisi ya kijamii ya Kurdistan.""" Kuna maana nyingine hasi za neno "kabila" ambazo zimepunguza matumizi yake. "Mtaalamu wa mambo ya kale wa Biblia, Matthew Ortoleba, aliandika hivi: ""Kama neno la Kihindi, neno kabila lina maana ya ukoloni." "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika makala ya hivi karibuni ya Survival International, ""Ni muhimu kutofautisha kati ya makabila na wenyeji kwa sababu watu wa makabila wana hadhi maalum inayotambuliwa katika sheria ya kimataifa na pia matatizo ya ziada ambayo wanakabiliwa na jamii pana ya wenyeji.""" Ni makabila machache leo yanayoendelea kutengwa na maendeleo ya mfumo wa kisasa wa serikali. Makabila yamepoteza uhalali wao wa kutekeleza kazi za jadi, kama vile kutoa kumi, kutoa haki na kulinda eneo, na hizi zimebadilishwa na kazi na taasisi za serikali, kama vile ushuru, mahakama za sheria na jeshi. Wengi wao wamepatwa na kupungua na kupoteza utambulisho wao wa kitamaduni. Baadhi yao wamebadilika na mazingira mapya ya kisiasa na kubadilisha utamaduni na mazoea yao ili waendelee kuishi, wakati wengine wamejipatia haki na ulinzi wa kisheria. Fried alipendekeza kwamba makabila mengi yaliyookoka hayana asili yao katika makabila ya kabla ya serikali, bali katika bendi za kabla ya serikali. Alipendekeza kwamba makabila hayo "ya sekondari" yalitokezwa kama bidhaa za kisasa za upanuzi wa serikali. Vikundi hivyo vina vikundi vidogo, vinavyoweza kusonga, na vinavyoweza kubadilika-badilika na vina uongozi dhaifu. Hawatokezi ziada, hawalipi kodi, na hawaungi mkono jeshi la kudumu. Fried alidai kwamba makabila ya sekondari huendelea kwa njia moja kati ya mbili. Kwanza, nchi zinaweza kuanzisha kama njia ya kupanua usimamizi na ushawishi wa kiuchumi katika maeneo yao ya nyuma, ambapo udhibiti wa kisiasa wa moja kwa moja ni gharama kubwa sana. "Watu wa nchi hizo waliwaomba watu wa nchi zao kuunda ""mashirika ya kisiasa"" kwa sababu ya kuwa na uwezo wa kuzalisha kodi na kuongezeka kwa mahitaji ya majimbo jirani (kama vile makabila ya Marekani au India ya Uingereza)." Waingereza walipendelea jina la utani "kabila la asili" kwa ajili ya jamii fulani. India ilipitisha katiba ya Jamhuri mwaka 1950, baada ya miaka mitatu ya mjadala katika Bunge lake la Katiba. Wakati wa mjadala huo, Jaipal Singh, mshiriki wa kabila la Munda kutoka India ya Kati alitetea masharti maalum kwa 'Adibasi' - tafsiri ya Kihindi ya 'wenyeji wa asili'. Hoja zake zilithibitika kuwa zenye kusadikisha. Jamii hizi zilipaswa kuwa na viti katika bunge na nafasi katika ajira ya serikali 'iliyowekwa akiba' kwa ajili yao. Kila mmoja wa washiriki wa mkusanyiko huo alitoa orodha ya jamii zilizostahili ulinzi wa pekee. Majina hayo yaliorodheshwa katika "Schedule" (kiambatisho) cha Katiba. "Kwa hivyo, makabila hayo yaliitwa ""makabila yaliyopangwa,"" mara nyingi yalifupishwa kuwa ST. Pili, makundi yaliweza kuunda makabila ya ""wa pili"" kama njia ya kujilinda dhidi ya upanuzi wa serikali." "Wanajeshi wa makundi ya watu wangekuwa na serikali zilizo wazi zaidi na za kati, kwa sababu serikali hizo zingekuwa na uwezo wa kuzalisha ziada ambazo zingetusaidia kuunda jeshi la kudumu ambalo lingepigana na mataifa, na zingekuwa na uongozi ambao ungeweza kuratibu uzalishaji wa kiuchumi na shughuli za kijeshi.""" Katika makabila ya Wenyeji wa Asili wa Amerika ya Kaskazini, makabila huonwa kuwa mataifa yenye uhuru, ambayo yamedumisha uhuru wao au yametambuliwa kisheria na serikali ya shirikisho. Owlapps.net - tangu 2012 - Les chouettes applications du hibou