For those, who know HENALOGIC, it is a word explainer. As words describes the world, explain by HENALOGIC what describes the world can help describing what is the world. By the way, Henalogic has no boundaries and conceptual limitations, all is in it and it is in all. We, will not, at each Henalogic research disclose its main purpose, as the work itself will establish it. While Henalogic has no boundaries, as it can describes from itself any word from any langage, it is interesting to focuse on a word that held this no-boundaries aspect: the word « Berber ».
Berber describes a type of social group, not (necessarly) a ethnic one; the henalogy of the word (Ber-Ber) means « roaming/roaming peoples », it has a itinerant meaning, which is a picture of the group and of its living habits. Basically, the word « Berber », by henalogy, implies that fondamentally, Berber are (the) nomadic peoples, or that their core, henalogic way of life, is that of nomadic peoples. Nomadic peoples, which we call nomayads, can live in great spaces, or better, circulate through wide spaces, very long distances, this is why their settlings are disseminated, moving by cycles, for pastoral obligations, to the kind of Siberians, Altaic or Eurasian peoples, are then Berbers intended or known, by their henalogy, to be shepherds? The nomayads often live in deserts and steppes, their itinerants lifestyles needed first ways of transports, here animals powered (horses, camels, etc).
Are Berbers more likely deserts or steppes nomayads? We should precise that it is a common misunderstanding, considering that Berbers are sometimes considered as in reality, only a part of the all Berber peoples group, this a synecdocue, a protum pro parte synecdoche (whole refferring to one part … isn’t curious that the concept of synecdoche is commonly used by synecdoche, I precise as a pars pro toto synecdoche?).
In this regard, can we concede that Berber is sometimes used to only describe one or more constituants of the Berbers group of peoples, but without encompassing the entire group? If such assesment is true, which part of the Berber people is, not seen as the whole, but is in fact considered as the only part of the Berber group, as the Berber group would then not be a ethnic group of multiples parts, but a unique and exclusive single group, which is not ethnical but behaviourial or social, more social or anthropological than purely genetical.
As the majority of Nomayad peoples, the Berbers are not primarly sedentary, so as the creation of modern states occured, they live in differents States, particularly in continguous ones, and in some cases, still circulate intinerantly between those states: this is the case in Sahara contries, or in Eurooa with non-sedentary categories among Romani peoples. Could we then concedes that Berber, and Nomadic peoples or Nomayads are different words with same signification, for a same reality? Could we then consider the Travellers and Itinerant Romani Peoples as Berbers/Nomayads?
In Eurasia, the creation of ethnic state-nations after the dissolution of the Soviet Union is antinomic with inter-states travelling of nomayads/berbers peoples; this is why nomayads peoples of the Eurasian region have been « granted » great natural « inhabited » spaces into their countries; after having been sometimes »relocated » far away from their historical places, this is even why post-sovietic eurasian ethnic nation-states have been granted great superficy when their main ethnic group is a fundamentally, or henalogically (I know this is a redondance) nomayad/berber ethnic/social group: this is for example the case of KAZAKHSTAN or MONGOLIA, and even of RUSSIA, which is a unique federation of diverse ethnic peoples, including of several eurasian and siberian nomayad groups. Russia, with the Nomayad/Berbers tribes and empires in its history; to the sake or tragedy of the lands, experienced the Eurasian Berber warriors confederations (Scythians? Kipchaks and Cumans among many others).
The main example in the Eurasian world of the existence of a pseudo or semi-ethnic group which is in fact was born from social community than ethnic identity is the Cossacks (the word may be a derivative of Kazakh, which means « free/independent » or « wanderer » and could also evoked a way of style linked to the search of gain and profit; so the early Kazakhs would, in their wide habitat and long travels, fit with the Great American Deserts cowboys, and the sole Cossacks as outlaws which escaping from their original places from all the Slav-Turk-Turkic-Caucasian or even Indo-Arabo-Persic Russian world, could join a (para)military like confederation of legal former outlaws, serving the Tsar if all Russias.
If the geo-ethnic organization of Siberia and Eurasia has been of the responsability of Russian empire and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), then Moscow have held the responsability of setting the organization of living and travelling, and even of citizenship, of the nomayads peoples into its geographical space.
Which organization did hold the responsability of the geo-ethnic organization of North Africa and Sahara-Sahel? As in the case of the Soviet Union, greater national ensembles structured the desertic and steppic geographical spaces; the only difference with USSR, when the Soviet Empires collapsed, is that after the traditionnal empires that administrated North Africa and Sahara-Sahel, basically the geographic space of living of the Berber group, the nation-states created by this process, which is comparable to the post-soviet mutually agreed independences, with the only exception that the independence process was not so natural, the post-empires north african and sahara-states have not be a mix of single ethnic and multi-ethnic groups as in post USSR-states: considering the relative ethnic diversity of North African and Shara-Sahel states, and considering the political raher than the pure cultural distinction, the newly independent North African and Shara-Sahel states could only be relatively multi-ethnic, or at least could not be established as ethic states, as Kyrgyztan (land of the Kyrgyz ethnicity, tve Kyryz being etymologically tve « free Kazakhs » which means the « free peoples among the free peoples », which is the ultimate symbol of independence or self-isolation/marginalisation, which can explain Kyrgyz nearly unreachable locations if not by climbing and planes ), Uzbek (land of the Uzbek ethnicity), Tajikistan (land of the Tajik ethnicity), Turkmenistan (land of the Turkmen ethnicity), Kazakhstan( land of the Kazakh ethnicity), Armenia (land of the Armenian ethnicity), Azerbaijan (land of the Azeri ethnicity), Georgia (land of the Geogia ethnicity) etc.
Of course, it wold be fallacious to consider that all the mentioned beyond post-soviet nations are pure ethnic states, at the exclusion of any single ethnic group or individual of another ethnic group that the institutionnally recognized majority ethnic group. Could we see all the post-soviet states as ethnic states group? Is it the question of the majority ethnicity, and of the minority ethnicity or ethnicities groups, which at the center of past, present or future troubles in the former Soviet region?
We could ask the same questions regarding the political organization of states and ethnicity in the North African, Sahara-Sahel region.
In Eurasia, there is two buffer states between China and RUsiia (Kazakhstan and Mongolia), but there is no buffer states in North and Mid-North Africa, why should it have such states as there is not at least two powers to separate from each other to prevent conflict. So here, nomayads ethnic peoples are disseminated between several different states; as I said, the political independence in Africa was prevailing upon the cultural independence: the culture was not a outside revendication, but a inside qsuestion treated by this way by the newly formed african independent states. This is why the first allegeance of the people of a new African state was not for the ethnicity but for the state or the idea of a nation; the first revendication was not of establish a national culture, but a nation, it was not a confrontation or negociation between a culture and another, but between a formerly dominant nation and an emancipating nation in formation. This is why it is not in the « culture » of the North Africa and Sahara-Sahel nations to be ethnically drived, but drived by the idea of their nation, in terms of citizenship, patriotism, and sometimes, as in Algeria for example, the aknowledgement of the diversity of its people, by aknowledging the Amazigh culture and langage for example.
Thus, could we say that the promotion of ethnic culture, or reserach of ethnic emancipation, is a questioning or threat of the ideal of African unitary nation-state? Our answer should not ignore the absence of material limits in desert and steppic spaces outside of the national frontiers, and the absence of limits of a life whose core could be in the most extrele cases based on out-law actions, or personal anti-social interactions or values of profit and gain, but also the existence of growing terrorist and criminal groups, which, in Africa, in Eurasia (for example in the south-west and south-east limits of former Soviet territories, as in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, or in Caucasus), or in Mesopotamia (Iraq and Syria), or in North Africa (in Libya, which is symbolic as Berbers was another word for the Antic Libyan, and that the former Libya leader GADDAFFI represented, as he revendicated it, an style if Berber, with his tents he brings everywhere he was coming, even in French presidential palace garden, which is comparable to Eurasian berbers and their mobile yurts, or Gypsies and their caravans), or in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Chad, the terrorist organizations are taking advantage of the absence of real regional organization or defence, to establish themselves as States, and we should precise, buffer rogue states, at the real disadvantage of the peoples of the region, berbers or not, and of the international community. This only because they took advantge of geostrategical issues, and of common lack of mutually accepted common peaceful projection, this in the disrespect of collective and national interests, in the disrespect of security and of territorial integrity, and of global safety and prosperity.
We should then be honest, Berber is not at all, the identity diverse and different of peoples called like this, proove it: Berber is a lifestyle, a way of life. Berber, then, is first linked with the sonically closest to it: the antic word barbarus, for barbarian, as the Egyptians or the Greeks, and the Romans could have designed some surrounding peoples (and the peoples living in the African desert, below and outside the « known-by-Roman » African Mediteranean coasts. Is then Berber a authoritarian or rebel attitude towards domestic civilization, or the sign of their designation as « strangers », « outsiders » or « foreigners » to the city? Since all foreigners are not perceived as berbers and that all Berbers are not foreigners, it is implies that Berbership us an attitude, even towards one own nation or city, or its hosting nation and city, which show a social frontier or incompatibility, at every scale, including professionally. Will then the berber nomadic way of life a result of reject, ban or self-isolation into the wide, and into the wild? Is it what is called berber a search of freedom, including of material freedom by any means possible? Is the Berber the real term to describe all the nomayads peoples of Earth? Considering that the word Berber, as the word Barbarian, cale from a distant past, we could not condider these words without considering the real sense they gave to the reality they considered: were they Barbarus and Berber (bar-bar and ber-ber phonetically because semantically close? If so, since Berber depicts a itinerant, marginalized, and maybe rejected, isolated way of life, in the « no man’s land spaces », or in all spaces but never inside the city ir a home to the point that there is no real cities or homes for such itinerant peoples, does it mean that, somewhere in time, the barbarus could have bring himself in the position of berber? From all the world and knowing it, but also in sometimes a somewhat posture of defiance towards it, and towards the present world, are the Berbers attached to History and the past because it is the only thing which could be certain regarding the uncertain future times?
If our questions are relevant, our answers could focuses on its own premisses , which is henalogics: the main historic purpose about berberus/barbarus was to prevent the agression and mutual state of internal conflicts, in though and act, by the common aknowledgement of human understanding and public order.