[ABANDONED] The Rights Of Tribal Groups & Areas

[Makko Oko]

Can you give me an example of a RL country that is not composed chiefly of numerous families, clans, or generations having a shared ancestry and language, and of a RL tribe that is? How did you figure it out? What criteria did you use for evaluation?
For instance, I would guess Scotland easily qualifies with all your criteria, but then I came to think about other nations; depending on timeframe, British colonisers in New Zealand or Australia could claim tribal status; they fit with some 6-8 generations. Next, if you go all-in on the clan part, you can exclude a lot of nations, but you'd still include Scotland and Ireland. You'd also include the Iroquois Confederacy. But to my knowledge, most Central and Southern American tribes are not clan-based. The Mexican tribal villages were not, for instance, and I don't think the Zapatista would be thrilled if you told them they weren't protected because of the clan criterion.

As a minor grammatical thing, your definition reads as an enumerated list, but there are at least two ways to read it, as demonstrated:
1) numerous families, (or) 2) clans, (or) 3) generations having a shared ancestry and language
Alternatively:
1) numerous families, (or) 2) clans, (or) 3) generations (any of which has to have) a shared ancestry and language

The reason why anthropologists generally have abandoned "tribe" as a term is because almost any definition is either overinclusive (Includes European nations or settler colonies, for instance) or plays into outdated and infantilising ideas of the Indian as a noble savage lower on the civilisational development ladder. But ethnic group has the issue here that it includes both the victims and the perpetrators of colonisation and imperialist conquest. So would a better definition include some kind of analysis of the histories and relative power-relationships between ethnic groups? Possibly. You could also draw more explicitly on RL history and protect conquered ethnic groups, but there might be flaws in that approach as well.
When I initially said...

I don't think this is a workable topic; it's hardly a workable topic IRL either.

... it wasn't to insult you, but to warn you that the topic is hard even for RL scholars before politics enter into it.

"While your points are quite fair Ambassador, and even as such, make more sense now than before, this is still a major oversight of the World Assembly, and as such, can't stop, even fretting how difficult defining a tribe may be. Internally, we've discussed your inclusion in this process as a co-author and all of us in the government have agreed to your inclusion, that is, if you agree as well." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

[Makko Oko]

Final call. Unless Attempted Socialism responds to the call to become a co-author, this will either be proposed or abandoned, up to my discretion. I'll give 1 or 2 days for any additional feedback.

[Attempted Socialism]

I don't think I have contributed a single specific line to your current proposal, so my contribution has chiefly been in the form of critique that you can use or not depending on how useful you find it (And mainly of how your definition of tribe works in terms of practical effect of the resolution). While I'm flattered by your offer, my contribution is not enough for me to accept a co-authorship.
I will also caution against submission as long as you yourself recognise parts of my critique. My first post was a warning that this would be a hard topic. You obviously want to pursue it, and you are right that it is an oversight, but seriously pursuing this also means taking the time to develop your draft into something that does what you want it to do.

[Makko Oko]

Bump. I know this is last call, and for the time being it will remain this way, but I did try changing the definition of the word tribe. Please inform if this definition is any better or not, and any other improvements I could make on the subject.

[Wallenburg]

The new definition is even worse than the previous one. Additionally, it now includes a RL reference, which is illegal. What's more, your RL reference is horrendously inaccurate: practically all American Indian reservations are not land which the occupying tribes originally lived in.

You still have offered no sufficient justification for the ethnic segregation and cleansing this recommends.

[Makko Oko]

The new definition is even worse than the previous one. Additionally, it now includes a RL reference, which is illegal. What's more, your RL reference is horrendously inaccurate: practically all American Indian reservations are not land which the occupying tribes originally lived in.

You still have offered no sufficient justification for the ethnic segregation and cleansing this recommends.

"We dearly apologize Ambassador for the mishap, we were trying to get a clear definition, which like another Ambassador has stated, does not fruitfully exist. As for 'ethnic segregation', this was not our intent and as such do not need to justify as it was not the intended action. If you may suggest relevant changes to remove the 'ethnic segregation' as you claim exists Ambassador, we'd be glad to implement them. Otherwise, we're stuck in a cross roads over your claim." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

[Imperium Anglorum]

One example are Native Americans, who are considered indigenous peoples and have 'reservations' which tend to be originally settled territory that is respected by the civilization.

This is a real life reference.

Edit. Ninja'd on the commute.

[Wallenburg]

A question about 3.b.i: regardless of its terrible policy propositions, it seems to legislate to non-member states, as these "protected tribes" are rendered outside the jurisdiction of the member state from which they secede. The World Assembly is not permitted to legislate to non-members.

[Makko Oko]

A question about 3.b.i: regardless of its terrible policy propositions, it seems to legislate to non-member states, as these "protected tribes" are rendered outside the jurisdiction of the member state from which they secede. The World Assembly is not permitted to legislate to non-members.

"From a legal standpoint Ambassador, while your question is fair and we appreciate you asking it, we think you misunderstood that portion of this resolution. 3b(i) is simply meant to be a requirement upon the member states, to prevent breaches of granted sovereignty. So while it may seem like a legislating upon a non-member state issue, we don't think it is one. If there's a better way to reword it, please inform our office as soon as possible." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

[Attempted Socialism]

I want to explore your new definition a bit -- and just to clarify, when I reference the real world, I mean for you to take inspiration, not to write RL references into your draft.
To my knowledge, the Americas, in common with most of the rest of the world, have seen waves of settlement as humans migrated out of Africa. The one I know of is the Clovis culture, but according to Wikipedia it wasn't the first wave of humans in the Americas and it was itself also later replaced. So who were the first settlers in the Americas? Next, from what I know of the Clovis culture they were hunter-gatherers, but to a large extend those descendants had developed agriculture and far more elaborate societies (Enough for Europeans to either trade for or steal crops like potato, tomato, maize, tobacco, and many forms of beans). What we do know is that most of the ethnic groups have moved around a lot, like they did in Europe, and many groups were also either moved and/or exterminated as an independent group. The North American result especially is that very few of them live on what you might call their native land (If you freeze time in 1492). I choose to treat the "directly related (...) by ancestry or by blood" as purely ancestry because the contrast you put up between ancestry and blood lead me to question what other blood-relations you're imagining.
So where do we land? Well, narrowly interpreted (Direct ancestry to first settlers, living on the same land the same way) there are no protected tribes in North America. Alternatively your narrow interpretation can become redundant a different way: European settlers who had children with the descendants of the first settlers also have the same right, thus a new generation by the conquerors and the survivors of the conquered tribe inherit the tribal claim despite everything.
But loosely interpreted your definition ceases to mean anything. All humans are related by ancestry, after all, or if first settlers doesn't need to mean literally the first, then suddenly the tribes are staying while the people are moving, becoming meaningless markers on the map.
As I see it your definition of a tribe trips you up even before you get into any policy. A government determined to oppress a native group would just go through the narrow interpretation and conclude there are no tribes which can be protected under this resolution. A more benign government, seeing as they can't use their own designations anymore, might go the same route with regard to WA law but let their own protections remain in place.

We come back to the question that I posed originally: What definition of "tribe" works to include only those extant groups we agree should be included, and not, for instance, nations, conquerors, and long-since dead tribes? In the real world we don't use a single definition, it's far more an individual judgement, adapted to each situation, country, continent, or epoch. The UN, in its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, sidesteps the very hard task of defining what indigenous people are, and addresses the trauma they share:

Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,
Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind,
Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust,
Reaffirming that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind,
Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests,

(My cursive)

The flaw here is that what is shared between UN members is not necessarily shared among WA members. UN members are all nations of humans with a history of being on Earth, which means we to some extend can apply a sort of "call them as we see them"-test (Though all the battles over the edges should tell you that it's fraught with difficulty as well). The UN also has a bureaucracy that can develop rules, but in the WA just getting a committee to define a tribe is a cop-out.

I suggested this before, and I am only more convinced of the merits now, that your definition should draw more firmly on the historical reference. You want to protect groups that share these traits in common: Ethic groups 1) currently disempowered and in the minority; 2) who have been subject to conquest, settlement, and displacement; and 3) who are not disposed to integration or assimilation. Again, this would not be perfect -- just to give an example, this is in part because an ongoing conquest where the victims are not yet in the minority would not be recognised under a definition using the criteria I outlined, but IMO that is more acceptable because their plight is not one of tribal self-governance but rather one of traditional liberation -- but it would get you closer to something where longwinded, pseudointellectual, pedantic douchebags like I can't plausibly claim that your definition either protects nobody or everybody and nothing in-between.

[Makko Oko]

Update. After much thinking, due to the complexities of trying to equally and rightfully define a tribe, I have decided to abandon this proposal. If anybody would like to potentially take it over and try for yourselves, please respond to this post and let me know. Telegrams regarding this proposal will be ignored.

[Bill deBlasio]

“Fuhgeddaboudit.”

- Bill deBlasio Jr., Mayor of the Self-Administrative City of Bill deBlasio