Re: [tied] Re: Scientific Nationalism?

Attachments :

>Why not? All nations do not have 10 million people or more. There are
>nations with a lot smaller number. Is a tribe defined only with
>reference to numbers? I think the use of the term, 'tribe' itself is
>an elitist tendency to assume that civilization is a modern,
>nationalistic invention. It all evolves; it all depends. It can be
>argued that a nation is an evolved tribe.
>
>

I agree [although I shudder to think what my old anthropology lecturers would say to that!]. The bloated super-tribes that we now see are only distinguished from their little precursors in that the economy has allowed us to grow and yet maintain good enough communications to prevent the fission that would otherwise have occurred in the past.

Tribe is of course an awkward word to use for all that it implies in terms of technological stages [having a very concrete definition in anthropology], and so I would prefer the term ethnos but in common speech it all comes down to the same thing.

In my own country's history, when did the Anglo Saxons stop being a tribe? It's all a continuum. I might quote the contemporarily acknowledged divisions of Saxons and Angles, or then again the non corresponding division between those south or north of the Humber [the latter being far superior!], but theese were all subsumed under Angelcynn or 'Englishkin'.

>Vae victis.

Email just got more fun @ another.com
http://another.com
Tired of that weasel stealing your mouse mat AGAIN? Then get the another.com
PERSONALISED mouse mat for ONLY ?7.99 INCLUDING delivery to home, college or
work - your choice.
Buy securely OnLine at http://www.another-shop.com