Why are there no Caucasoids/West Eurasians living in a tribal lifestyle in the modern day?

[Synapsid]

Why there are still plenty of groups who still live in tribal style in other races like in Amerindians, Negroids, Australoids and Mongoloids?

For Amerindians, you have Amazonian tribes and some groups in Mexico and Central America, for Negroids/Capoids (although they are very genetically divergent from one another) you have Pygmies, Khoisans, Hadzas and probably a few tribes in West Africa, for Australoids you have some highland tribes of New Guinea, Australian Aboriginals and Negritos such as the Andamanese islanders and Aeta of Philippines, and for Mongoloids, you have Siberians such as Eskimos/Inuits, Chukchis, Nganasans. And then tropical East Asians like the Mentawai, inland tribes in Borneo, Sumatra (Suku Anak Dalam) and Philippines.

So why are there no Caucasoid tribes unlike other races? By tribal, I mean like hunter gatherers. So I'm not counting groups like Bedouins or some Iranian tribes like Lur or Qashqai who are pastoral. What could be the reasons? Widespread agriculture in West Eurasia? Or the terrain is not fit for that lifestyle?

Because for the same reason that all West Eurasians have ENF/bEU. Pred. West Eurasians are more geographically interconnected together than Mongoloids, Amerinds, SSA, Oceanians. Case example: Spread of Abrahamic traditions, from Northern Abyssinians in 300 AD to Coastal Norwegians 1000 AD, who both share heavy Dzudzuana ancestry. Look at the commons motifs in the artwork of these two peoples despite distance between these two groups, Togas, phonetic alphabet, liber Codex, posture, Med columns, use of vellum etc.
http://www.ethiopianheritagefund.org...ntext-new-copy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Codex_Aureus
But before the spread of Christianity, Germanic peoples were very tribal people, as were early Slavs, and Balts were the last European tribal peoples

[sean]

Why are there no Caucasoids/West Eurasians living in a tribal lifestyle in the modern day? By tribal, I mean like hunter gatherers.

It depends on your definition of tribal lifestyle.

A tribe is a group of people who are a unit but not from a state-level society. They aren't building many (if any) permanent structures; they don't practice long-term food storage; they probably don't have too many specialised roles (there might be someone who is very skilled at making weapons, but they are not a weapon maker in the sense of it being a trade that they practice to the exclusion of other tasks). Obviously the line of where this is crossed is a little vague.

For example, take Kazakh people. They have tribes, they are not from big civilisation. Are they tribal people? If yes, then they are completely different from Native Americans or Australian Aborigines in terms of lifestyle.

What could be the reasons? Widespread agriculture in West Eurasia? Or the terrain is not fit for that lifestyle?

Because of density. Prehistoric hunter-gatherer tribes had an average group limit of 50 people. It seems that no matter the period or place there's always a new culture. Even Ancient Egyptians and Hittites can't step in any hospitable direction without bumping into a new tribe/culture.

Why there are still plenty of groups who still live in tribal style in other races like in Amerindians, Negroids, Australoids and Mongoloids?

If food is easily available and you are not in proximity of other groups to go to war with there is virtually no pressure for you to develop technology. That is the situation that the existing hunter-gatherer tribes that still exist are in.

Many hunter-gatherer cultures, particularly in places where resources are abundant, choose to remain hunter-gatherer cultures because they have more free time. Hunter-gatherer societies spend only a couple of hours a day gathering resources, the rest of the time is free.

Not all uncontacted peoples are hunter-gatherers either. Agriculture is widespread in Papua (being one of the original cradles of agriculture) so many of the uncontacted societies there likely practice a form of agriculture too. Same applies to those in the Amazon, where many uncontacted people are known to also farm maize, cassava, and sweet potatoes.

Australian Aborigines with bountiful food resources available didn't go so heavily in for agriculture. They'd replant tuber tops, farm Eels, industrial scale shell-fish harvesting and the like, yet didn't get into the whole 16 hour days work farmers life as they could support a family group with only a few hours "work" a day. Sit by the fire and wait for a goanna to walk by.

There were historical Native Americans who developed state-level societies, like the Mound Builders at Cahokia or the Anasazi/Pueblo at Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde.

Btw were the Guanches also Hunter Gatherers before the arrival of Spaniards to the Canaries?

Maybe, archaeology of the Canaries seems to reflect diverse levels of technology, some differing from the Neolithic culture that was encountered at the time of conquest.

It seems when the Spanish took over the islands, they took way too long conquering them, because the Guanches would live in caves up in the mountains and were hard to ambush. I guess after taking so many years defeating what was considered a lesser society they did not care much for preserving Guanche history and language.

The ecosystem after all varies depending on which island. Fuerteventura and Lanzarote for example are rather barren and the closest to the African coast. On Tenerife it's different again, with the south being barren and the north being forest. Then to another example would be the micro rainforest on La Gomera.

Despite obviously living on islands, they had no knowledge of constructing or navigating boats. This led to each island in the archipelago developing its own unique culture.

There are numerous theories but it is imaginable they just lost this knowledge over time or they never had it to begin with (according to another theory, they had been prisoners who then have been marooned on these islands). They intentionally withheld teaching their kids this knowledge.

Maybe after being shipwrecked, they were hit on the head by falling coconuts, and proceeded to hit their heads until their intellect dropped enough to not know that things float.

And there's nothing extraordinary about people living isolated in an island being centuries behind people living in a continent.

However, a cave on Gran Canaria has revealed that its aboriginal inhabitants had an impressive knowledge of astronomy.

But I guess if there is a global modern civilization collapse in the future due to reasons like climate change, overpopulation, nuclear war, other self destructive and stupid behaviors of humans and natural causes like asteroids, etc. and every technological innovation ends or regresses back, we might a revival of similar lifestyle again I guess among some Whites/Euros who are anarcho-primitivists or tribalists who romanticize pre-industrial lifestyle.

I don't think so. We imagine that primitive people lived lives like ours, just cruder - but their value systems really violate our notions of human nature.

Agriculturalists value large families to work the land. Many hunter-gatherers on the other hand employ population control measures such as infanticide and birth control - also infant mortality is high in nomadic populations.

Varg did say that there should be a combination of civilisation and barbarism (semi-civilised society) but that a global collapse of civilisation is the best way to clear away the globalist filth that has built up over the past few thousand years.

But Romanian peasants are already living Varg's "traditional" lifestyle lel.

Spoiler!

The more people there are in a community, the higher the chances there's a genius among them who innovates and all the community benefits from him.

Not every European is Leonhard Euler but every European benefited from Euler's achievements.

That's why the best mathematician currently is Terence Tao because Han people are 1.5 billion. And we all benefit from his knowledge while isolated tribes in the jungle don't.

[Zanzibar]

Because for the same reason that all West Eurasians have ENF/bEU. Pred. West Eurasians are more geographically interconnected together than Mongoloids, Amerinds, SSA, Oceanians. Case example: Spread of Abrahamic traditions, from Northern Abyssinians in 300 AD to Coastal Norwegians 1000 AD, who both share heavy Dzudzuana ancestry. Look at the commons motifs in the artwork of these two peoples despite distance between these two groups, Togas, phonetic alphabet, liber Codex, posture, Med columns, use of vellum etc.
http://www.ethiopianheritagefund.org...ntext-new-copy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Codex_Aureus
But before the spread of Christianity, Germanic peoples were very tribal people, as were early Slavs, and Balts were the last European tribal peoples

So the reason is because all West Eurasians have ENF/Basal Eurasian due to less geographical isolation? Wouldn't ANE also be predominantly West Eurasian despite lacking Basal Eurasian?

Fascinating indeed. Does having Basal Eurasian means a change from tribal-hunter gatherer lifestyle to agricultural one?

I see, but do ancient Germanics, Slavs, Balts live in tribes like naked, hunting, and foraging what we see modern day among tribal communities in isolated parts of the world?

[Synapsid]

So the reason is because all West Eurasians have ENF/Basal Eurasian due to less geographical isolation? Wouldn't ANE also be predominantly West Eurasian despite lacking Basal Eurasian?

Fascinating indeed. Does having Basal Eurasian means a change from tribal-hunter gatherer lifestyle to agricultural one?

I see, but do ancient Germanics, Slavs, Balts live in tribes like naked, hunting, and foraging what we see modern day among tribal communities in isolated parts of the world?

I am talking about just Modern West Eurasians in West Eurasia, I am not talking about Paleo-Euros, ANE, PGNE etc. Perhaps I should articulate my self better. Basically what I am saying is that, just like how ENF ancestry spread across western Eurasia by diffusion, up to the point where it became ubiquitous, so did ideas about Civilization and religion spread across Western Eurasia, its simply that West Eurasia was connected geographically early onwards, with the last tribal people being pushed out or genocided like the Baltic Prussians by the 1000s AD. There is a reason by Germans write their language in a script that ultimately derived from Egyptian hieroglyphics while Naganassans don't use Sinitic bone script Oracle derived writing, or pre contact Amazonians tribes don't use Mayan ideo-graphic syllabic script. Basically Ideas and concepts travel faster across Western Eurasia over a period of thousands of years where modern West Eurasians live because of easier Geography, while East Eurasians spread over far more geographically distant, harsher and isolated places from the Artic circle to isolated jungles, so while some East Asians lived civilized settings like the Han Chinese because of favourable geography, it would have been difficult for Chinese ideas of high culture to spread to where all East Eurasians lived in the pre modern Era, from Greenland to the Urals, to Borneo. But Sumerian, Iranian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Canaanite, Phoenician ideas of civilization did spread over Western Eurasia where pure or Pred West Eurasians lived because it was easier geographically, but it was a process that took thousands of years so by the early 1500s AD, all West Eurasian societies were not tribal as you would have described it, since they would all have writing, true buildings (free standing), societal stratification, organized religion, calendars etc . My argument is not Racial, but is based on Richard Dawkins idea of Memonics (meme).

[KuakoVoice]

Why there are still plenty of groups who still live in tribal style in other races like in Amerindians, Negroids, Australoids and Mongoloids?

For Amerindians, you have Amazonian tribes and some groups in Mexico and Central America, for Negroids/Capoids (although they are very genetically divergent from one another) you have Pygmies, Khoisans, Hadzas and probably a few tribes in West Africa, for Australoids you have some highland tribes of New Guinea, Australian Aboriginals and Negritos such as the Andamanese islanders and Aeta of Philippines, and for Mongoloids, you have Siberians such as Eskimos/Inuits, Chukchis, Nganasans. And then tropical East Asians like the Mentawai, inland tribes in Borneo, Sumatra (Suku Anak Dalam) and Philippines.

So why are there no Caucasoid tribes unlike other races? By tribal, I mean like hunter gatherers. So I'm not counting groups like Bedouins or some Iranian tribes like Lur or Qashqai who are pastoral. What could be the reasons? Widespread agriculture in West Eurasia? Or the terrain is not fit for that lifestyle?

Borneo,Sumatra,and the Philippines is in Southeast Asia not East Asia.Two different things,East Asia is a Temperate zone with four seasons and all the works.Southeast Asia is the only part of Asia that straddles the Equator and goes into the Pacific where Oceania is.The people in those islands are also ethnically Austronesian.

[Zanzibar]

Borneo,Sumatra,and the Philippines is in Southeast Asia not East Asia.Two different things,East Asia is a Temperate zone with four seasons and all the works.Southeast Asia is the only part of Asia that straddles the Equator and goes into the Pacific where Oceania is.The people in those islands are also ethnically Austronesian.

In geography, that is indeed true and I agree with you. But genetically speaking, Austronesians like Flips, Borneo tribes, are Mongoloid which is much closer to East Asians than to the indigenous Hoabinhnian (closely related to Jarawa, Sentinelese, Onge)/Negrito, AASI (Ancient Ancestral South Indian),and Australoid inhabitants of SE Asia.

[Synapsid]

In geography, that is indeed true and I agree with you. But genetically speaking, Austronesians like Flips, Borneo tribes, are Mongoloid which is much closer to East Asians than to the indigenous Hoabinhnian (closely related to Jarawa, Sentinelese, Onge)/Negrito, AASI (Ancient Ancestral South Indian),and Australoid inhabitants of SE Asia.

Onge and Hoabinhnian are closer to East Asians than they are to AASI or Australasians

[Zanzibar]

Onge and Hoabinhnian are closer to East Asians than they are to AASI or Australasians

Hoabinhian is Negrito right? The ancient sample from Laos seems closest to Andamanese tribals.

[Synapsid]

Hoabinhian is Negrito right? The ancient sample from Laos seems closest to Andamanese tribals.

Orang Asli seem close to Hoabinhian, and Onge seem to be also close to Hoabinhian. Hoabinhian are closer to East Asians than to Oceanians.

[Synapsid]

Hoabinhian is Negrito right? The ancient sample from Laos seems closest to Andamanese tribals.

Orang Asli seem close to Hoabinhian, and Onge seem to be also close to Hoabinhian. Hoabinhian are closer to East Asians than to Oceanians.