Can the Great Khans be called a 'tribe'?

[Izak]

Pretty much everything outside of society would fit that definition, so it's much too broad.

Yes, basically every group that isn't a part of society at large is a tribe. The tribes of Africa aren't exactly what I'd call cultural powerhouses or self sufficient, would you say they're in fact not tribes and that everyone is using the wrong nomenclature?

They aren't, they rely on raiding others and stealing. That's not self sufficiency. But in New Vegas they have a unique culture that's not merely being raiders.

Do they not rely on those in New Vegas? Would you describe living off of the proceeds of narcotics as self-sufficiency?
They have a unique culture in 1 and 2 as well, in so far as being a Mongol inspired, multi-ethnic, neo-motorcycle gang with a simple hierarchy is a culture, crap in 2 they even have a history of suffering (obviously not as long a history as they have in New Vegas, though).

I restructure my posts after I write them to make sure I don't leave any grammar errors or inconsistencies, sometimes this means I leave in 1 sentence that doesn't really kerjigger with the rest of the post. Sorry.

 

[Crossfire]

Maybe give us a list of all the factions you consider to be tribes. Just to make things nice and clear. We can try and spot some common elements.

 

[Izak]

Maybe give us a list of all the factions you consider to be tribes. Just to make things nice and clear. We can try and spot some common elements.

Me or Dr. Fallout?

 

[Crossfire]

Me or Dr. Fallout?

@Dr Fallout

 

[Dr Fallout]

Yes, basically every group that isn't a part of society at large is a tribe. The tribes of Africa aren't exactly what I'd call cultural powerhouses or self sufficient, would you say they're in fact not tribes and that everyone is using the wrong nomenclature?

I'm confused, they do have complex cultures and rely on the land for everything. Nowadays maybe no.

Do they not rely on those in New Vegas? Would you describe living off of the proceeds of narcotics as self-sufficiency?
They have a unique culture in 1 and 2 as well, in so far as being a Mongol inspired, multi-ethnic, neo-motorcycle gang with a simple hierarchy is a culture, crap in 2 they even have a history of suffering (obviously not as long a history as they have in New Vegas, though).

I have no problem of them being a tribe in NV. How are they Mongol inspired apart from their name? That's like saying Hell's Angels are Christian inspired. Multi-ethnic does not make a culture. They have no connection to motorcycles, and being a gang does not give you a culture.

Maybe give us a list of all the factions you consider to be tribes. Just to make things nice and clear. We can try and spot some common elements.

Arroyo, tribes of Zion, tribes of the Legion (before assimilation), tribes of New Vegas (before House).

 

[Izak]

I have no problem of them being a tribe in NV.

This is what's confusing to me. The way they're portrayed in New Vegas is extremely similar to the way they're portrayed in 2, I fail to see the extreme difference between the two that causes one to be a loose conglomeration of raiders and the other a tribe. Could you tell me why they're not tribes in 1 and 2 as opposed to New Vegas? Keep in mind that in all 3 appearances they have a culture, a hierarchy and a basic economy that relies upon others.

How are they Mongol inspired apart from their name?

In their first appearance they more or less follow the lifestyle of the old Mongols. They raid, they burn, they enslave and they prize strength above all else. It's also possible that they're of Mongolian descent.
Also, look at these pictures of the first Khans:

They're pretty clearly Mongol inspired.

They have no connection to motorcycles, and being a gang does not give you a culture.

Their symbol certainly looks like a motorcycle patch, and I wouldn't be the first person to make the connection between the Khans and motorcycle culture.

Arroyo, tribes of Zion, tribes of the Legion (before assimilation), tribes of New Vegas (before House).

So they have to be savages? I honestly can't think of any features that New Vegas' Khans and these guys share that they don't also share with the Original Khans.

 

[Dr Fallout]

This is what's confusing to me. The way they're portrayed in New Vegas is extremely similar to the way they're portrayed in 2, I fail to see the extreme difference between the two that causes one to be a loose conglomeration of raiders and the other a tribe. Could you tell me why they're not tribes in 1 and 2 as opposed to New Vegas? Keep in mind that in all 3 appearances they have a culture, a hierarchy and a basic economy that relies upon others.

But they're not. They have a clear history, clear culture (initiation trials, legends, etc) and even have their own unique appearance and society. In the first game they are literally just raiders and that is it. The first two do not have a culture, especially as the only Khan in the second game is their leader, a survivor of the Vault Dweller's purge.

In their first appearance they more or less follow the lifestyle of the old Mongols. They raid, they burn, they enslave and they prize strength above all else. It's also possible that they're of Mongolian descent.
Also, look at these pictures of the first Khans:

...
That's not limited to Mongols. Many cultures, ethnic groups and people have had life style.
That's not clear in the game, and it is never actually described.

Their symbol certainly looks like a motorcycle patch, and I wouldn't be the first person to make the connection between the Khans and motorcycle culture.

So? There is no actual rationale for this, and is merely just people hearing stuff and then repeating it. Their views are coloured by what they hear.

So they have to be savages? I honestly can't think of any features that New Vegas' Khans and these guys share that they don't also share with the Original Khans.

No, many of the tribes are quite sophisticated. I do, they have a connected history and culture.

 

[Izak]

They have a clear history

As do the Fallout 2 Khans. the Fallout Khans don't really have one but they've only been around for ~80 years, that's irrelevant though as you can't honestly tell me tribes require to exist for a certain period of time before actually 'ascending' to tribal-hood.

initiation trials

Fallout 1 Khans have an initiation trial (see here) and Fallout 2's Khans may have had one, it's difficult to tell because all interactions with them are hostile.

legends

I can't think of a single Khan legend, history sure, but no legends.

and even have their own unique appearance and society.

As do Fallout 1 (I literally just posted pictures) and Fallout 2 Khans.

The first two do not have a culture

Why not? They have a unique fashion, a shared heritage, common beliefs and (in Fallout 2) a history of suffering.

especially as the only Khan in the second game is their leader, a survivor of the Vault Dweller's purge.

Being a Khan is a cultural identity, not a problem of inheritance. Otherwise I could say the Khans in New Vegas aren't really Khans, as the 'last Khan' from Fallout 2 is killed by the Chosen One.

That's not clear in the game, and it is never actually described.

It can't be clear in the game because the character models are the same generic things used for every single other person in the game but the intention's clearly there; the developers meant for us to interpret it that way.

I do, they have a connected history and culture.

They have these things in 1 and 2 as well.
In 1 they all originated from Vault 15 and had a short history of raiding places, they wore similar dress and shared beliefs about the importance of strength.
In Fallout 2 they were all junkies brought together by the only survivor of the original Khans, they shared an intense hatred of the NCR, a mutual drug addiction and beliefs of the importance of strength.

 

[Dr Fallout]

You've convinced me, there are no differences between the Khans in the first two games and NV. However I still believe they cannot be considered a tribe, because otherwise almost all groups can be considered as tribes, which they're not.

 

[Izak]

I don't know why the criteria for a tribe has to be so stringent. It's not as though being a tribe is a mark of high civility.

 

[Dr Fallout]

I don't know why the criteria for a tribe has to be so stringent. It's not as though being a tribe is a mark of high civility.

Because tribes are a distinct part of our world, and have long complex histories and cultures.

 

[Izak]

and have long complex histories and cultures.

I thought the important tribes ascended to nationhood, the rest are really just failed projects.

 

[Crossfire]

However I still believe they cannot be considered a tribe, because otherwise almost all groups can be considered as tribes, which they're not.

But most communities can be called tribes. I don't think there's a problem with that. It has broad applicability.

Man, I really don't get why you have to be so uncompromising on the definition of the word "tribe". But, I mean, it really doesn't matter. Let's be honest, this is a pretty ridiculous debate. My side won the poll though, just saying.

 

[Dr Fallout]

But most communities can be called tribes. I don't think there's a problem with that. It has broad applicability.

Man, I really don't get why you have to be so uncompromising on the definition of the word "tribe". But, I mean, it really doesn't matter. Let's be honest, this is a pretty ridiculous debate. My side won the poll though, just saying.