We seem to be arguing over semantics. I suspect reflexes of Latin
_tribus_ may be offering us false friends in various European
languages.
For the Romans, a tribe was something resembling an electoral
constituency. The Greek equivalent was a _phyle_. When you read the
foundation stories of these ancient cities, you see the founder
divided the people into tribes. These were not ethnic or linguistic
groupings, but political groupings. There was almost always a
practical division between urban tribes and rural tribes.
In AmE, the word is influenced by the Bible (the tribes of Israel) and
its usage to describe American Indian groups.
English is also influenced by the word 'clan', which basically means
an extended family. If there is a distinction between a clan and a
tribe, I think tribes would be less intensly related by blood.
Thus, there is a confusion between family groupings and political
groupings.
If adjacent tribes cooperate, then you can speak of a tribal
confederacy. And its in this last grouping that you might find the
start of 'nations'. Switzerland might be a good example here.
Che wrote:
> In la France there are also, at least, Catalans, Occitans and
Corses, dammit! (It's clear unless you go bombing around you get no
recognition...) And Spain has also, at least, Galicians.
No disrespect is meant. But we Americans have to stop and think to
remember all these groups. I think of these groups as 'ethnic groups',
'minority peoples not organized into a nation-state'. It's like you
Europeans trying to remember all those American Indian tribes.
> For me, "nation" -> "let us be, hell!" opposed to "nation-state" ->
"gonna weep all those barbars out". So "nationalist" is that who looks
for freedom, while "nation-statalist" is that who looks for supremacy.
Nothing to do, then, between a Catalan nationalist and a French
nationalist.
As I earlier posted, 'nation' has two senses: 'nation-state, country'
and 'distinct ethnic group', with the former being the usual modern
sense.
After World War I, the term 'national self determination' comes into
circulation. This is where the various peoples of the defunct Central
and East European empires were to be allowed to each decide their
political futures. Here, we are speaking of the right of a people, a
distinct ethnic group, to decide how they are to be ruled, either in
federation with another group, or alone as in independent nation.
> In addition, let me say that the only heirs of tribe are nations,
not states, which are a modern invention.
As I said, I don't think of a tribe as a national unit. It may evolve
into that, but does not start out that way. States are quite ancient
(what else would you call ancient Egypt); states, nations, countries
-- as I said, these tend to be synonyms in modern parlence, tho' I
agree some clear distinctions can be made. A state is a purely
political unit; a country refers to geography, the territory a state
controls; a nation is the two together, presumably with some cultural
cohesiveness.