Is it acceptable to use the term "tribe" when discussing African history?

by CaptainPyjamaShark

I took an African history class a few years back, and the TA was always upset when anyone referred to African societies as tribes. For the most part we discussed and wrote about Africa in the 19th century.

The TA said that tribe has a negative and eurocentric connotation, and she explained that it was hypocritical to label an African civilization as tribal but not any Western ones. I see her point, but I found it difficult to write about African societies without using the term. And isn't a tribe a community largely based on kinship ties or stratified and led by chiefs? - which describes in general a number of historic African communities.

Furthermore, I am studying in France at the moment, and a professor with whom I was discussing the Amerindians in Guyana also frowned on the term. He explained that in France it always bore the sense of a primitive civilization.

So, is it ever correct to use the term tribe? What about in other places or periods of history, like Gallic tribes, for instance? I'm wondering what the standard academic byline is on this.

CommodoreCoCo

You may be interested in this thread from just last week. It contains views from several of our members about the use of "tribe" in their particular field. You'll find that in many places it's been over-applied, due to assumptions of static or homogenized cultures, to the point that it really has no more meaning. In other places, like the US, it has solid definitions and remains in use by both outsiders and the people being described.