New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations

[Masada]

Clans are political units; satisfying whatever biological component there might be in membership is just a fictive genealogy/adoption away.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well yeah, but at that point, you can describe any social organization you like as an extended family. I mean, we're related aren't we?

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, but a clan places emphasis on the fact that its members are related, and normally acts somewhat like a family unit. Masada is right that sometimes the actual relation might be spurious at best, but identifying itself as a large family is an important difference between a clan and a small village, for example. Unless you're in Norfolk. Or Alabama.

But that was not their own bureaucracy but that of the United States...

Does that make Texans uncivilised?

 

[Domen]

On the one hand, we could say that the Lakota Nations c.1850 "civilised" because they were "involved" with the beauraucracy of the United States government;

But it was not their own bureaucracy but that of the United States...

on the other, we could say that the Irish c.1400 "uncivilised" because the "involvement" of the majority of the population with beauraucracy was passing and occassional.

Who said about the involvement of "majority of the population"? I said about the existence of bureaucracy.

No matter what % of population was involved in it.

So again, the Lakota circa 1850 were not a tribe because they were a "post-state" structure.

Sorry, what?

Did I miss something or did the Lakota develop a state and later returned back to tribal organization in circa 1850?

As far as I know the Lakota never created their own state. So their tribe clearly was a "pre-state" structure.

 

[Masada]

I think we've all now agreed that clans as biological units don't exist then.

 

[Traitorfish]

But that was not their own bureaucracy but that of the United States...

The United States government was fairly insistent that their bureaucracy applied to the Lakota. If it's necessary that a bureaucracy be developed internally by an ethnic group, then I am not civilised, because the British state bureaucracy isn't Gaelic.

Who said about the involvement of "majority of the population"? I said about the existence of bureaucracy.

No matter what % of population was involved in it.

So as long as a bureaucracy exists somewhere in the world, all humans are civilised?

 

[Domen]

So basically, societies that don't structure themselves according to Tannistry are "Backwards"

What has "Tannistry" to do with technology?

So as long as a bureaucracy exists somewhere in the world, all humans are civilised?

Not "somewhere in the world", but in a particular state or tribe or other community.

And also it seems that you forgot that we are talking here from historical perspective - and frequent interactions between peoples from various parts of the world is something common only during the last 200 - 300 years. In year 1400 Europeans didn't even know that America or Australia exist - and vice versa.

Thus the fact that bureaucracy existed in Europe in 1400 did not mean that Aborigenes in Australia were civilised.

Actually the main difference between tribe and state is that tribes don't have bureaucracy.

If a tribe has a bureaucracy then it can be called a state - or at least a tribal state.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What has "Tannistry" to do with technology?

It's the most complicated.

 

[Masada]

Does that make Texans uncivilised?

Yes, I believe so.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not "somewhere in the world", but in a particular state or tribe.

Actually the difference between tribe and state is only that tribes don't have bureaucracy.

If tribe has a bureaucracy than it can be called a state - or at least a tribal state.

How do we know if a given community is "in" a state or tribe in question?

Also, if a "tribe" is simply any polity without a bureaucracy, does that mean that polities like Fortriu, Powys or Nortumbria were "tribes", even though they didn't represent coherent communities so much as accumulations of authority by warlords?

 

[Domen]

Ok, tribes also have some degree of bureaucracy.

Depends what kinds of tribes, though. I would call such tribes (the ones with some degree of bureaucracy) chiefdoms than tribes. The Kingdom of Northumbria - if it was as you described it ("a loose accumulation of regional authority by paramount warlords") should also be called a chiefdom - rather than a state.

How do we know if a given community is "in" a state or tribe in question?

There is also chiefdom (or chiefdoms) as a transitional stage between tribe (or tribes) and state.

The Lakota were surely not in tribal stage - rather they already formed several chiefdoms and federations of chiefdoms.

Chiefdoms could consist of tribes of course. Just like several tribes can be part of one state - which means not necessarily "tribe" is only a pre-state form of human political organization, because tribes can also continue to exist within one state when such a state is already formed.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ok, tribes also have some degree of bureaucracy.

Depends what kinds of tribes, though. I would call such tribes (the ones with some degree of bureaucracy) chiefdoms than tribes. The Kingdom of Northumbria - if it was as you described it ("a loose accumulation of regional authority by paramount warlords") should also be called a chiefdom - rather than a state.

There is also chiefdom (or chiefdoms) as a transitional stage between tribe (or tribes) and state.

So what's the difference, in your view, between a tribe and a chiefdom?

The Lakota were surely not in tribal stage - rather they already formed several chiefdoms and federations of chiefdoms.

I don't think they had, no. They had leaders who we might have called "chiefs", but they didn't really have the sort of heirarchical, tributary system that is generally indicated by the term "chiefdom" as a mode of political organisation. Possibly you are thinking of another Native American peoples?

Chiefdoms could consist of tribes of course. Just like several tribes can be part of one state - which means not necessarily "tribe" is only a pre-state form of human political organization, because tribes can also continue to exist within one state when such a state is already formed.

I'm confused; a society "transitions" from a tribe to a chiefdom to a state, but it can also be more than one of those at the same time? Isn't that like saying that a caterpillar becomes a butterfly and yet remains a catterpillar?

 

[Domen]

I'm confused; a society "transitions" from a tribe to a chiefdom to a state, but it can also be more than one of those at the same time? Isn't that like saying that a caterpillar becomes a butterfly and yet remains a catterpillar?

Of course not because some states were formed via union of tribes or chiefdoms (such as early Germanic or Slavic - so called tribal states). After those states collapsed (some of them did), they again turned into a bunch of chiefdoms and tribes. Even some modern states include tribal societies - for example Republic of Namibia includes societies of Bushmen tribes living on its territory. Indian 19th century reservations in the United States or Canada were also examples. As well as Indians refusing to go to reservations and resisting in an armed struggle.

They had leaders who we might have called "chiefs" (...) Possibly you are thinking of another Native American peoples?

No - the Lakota tribes also formed a similar confederation / union of tribes to that of Iroquois:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sioux#O.C4.8Dh.C3.A9thi_.C5.A0ak.C3.B3wi.C5.8B

Those seven major tribes / "chiefdoms" (which together formed the Great Sioux Nation and had their own "Council of Seven Fires") divided into even more of smaller tribes - for example Yanktonai consisted of five smaller groups - Upper Yanktonai (which included 3 groups - Pah Baxah, Wahzecootai and Gens Perchez) and Lower Yanktonai (which included 2 groups - Hukpatina and Assiniboin).

 

[Traitorfish]

So if the terms "tribe", "chiefdom" and "state" do not refer to not mutually exclusive forms of political organisation, how can they be described as "stages" of "advancement"?

 

[Domen]

Because they are stages of advancement.

Advancement is not necessarily via transformation it can be also about merging of structures or / and creating new ones (with or without destroying old ones). Many states were formed by alliances of various tribes / chiefdoms, which united and together created over-tribal state structures.

It doesn't mean that all of old chiefdom / tribal structures automatically ceased to exist within that new-formed state.

They often continued to exist as regional structures within a state extending over several such regions.

 

[tokala]

No - the Lakota tribes also formed a similar confederation / union of tribes to that of Iroquois

Only with the small problem regarding your argument, that there was no power structure whatsoever within that "confederation"

The social/political unit in the olden times was the (very) extended family, and any structure above that would have been very fluid, flimsy and informal.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because they are stages of advancement.

Advancement is not necessarily via transformation it can be also about merging of structures or / and creating new ones (with or without destroying old ones). Many states were formed by alliances of various tribes / chiefdoms, which united and together created over-tribal state structures.

It doesn't mean that all of old chiefdom / tribal structures automatically ceased to exist within that new-formed state.

They often continued to exist as regional structures within a state extending over several such regions.

What do you mean by "advancement"? Advancement towards what, and by what metric?

 

[Domen]

You should tell me this - you used this word first (see your post #164).

 

[innonimatu]

You're going to make an excellent robot one day.

And we often need that robot. That and another for [citation needed].

I think we've all now agreed that clans as biological units don't exist then.

Well, yes, but does it matter? If they think themselves a family and hold rituals bringing biological strangers into the clan, we may as well call them a family.

 

[Flying Pig]

And we often need that robot. That and another for [citation needed].

Oh yes... as much as I dislike the Wikipedia school of argument (you can't say it unless you can dig up a source for it), I do think that anyone quoting facts or figures which seem wildly different to what we consider 'common knowledge' ought to find a (digital; it's no good asking us to take your word for it that it's written in a book that nobody else has) source for it.

Well, yes, but does it matter? If they think themselves a family and hold rituals bringing biological strangers into the clan, we may as well call them a family.

My point exactly. However, that does clear up my own sloppy terminology.

You should tell me this - you used this word first (see your post #164).

Nope. Most CFC arguments happen because two posters, normally with slightly different first languages or dialects, are using two different and often contradictory meanings for one crucial word. Both of you ought to explain precisely what you mean: often that causes one or both to say 'ah, yes, I agree totally' - and then start arguing over which has the definition of 'emperical', 'socialist' or 'liberal' (which I think are the worst offenders) correct.