This thread has already mentioned various historical efforts to define tribes out of existence. WA has several such tribes which have been denied federal recognition, My knowledge of the esoterica of who counts or does not count according to tribal or government definitions is really limited to chatter overheard in my favorite sociological research mileau, the local bus.
However, it would occur to me to put the history of US govt and especially Republican administration views of these questions with respect specifically to the Yu'pik on my list of points to probe in terms of the newest vice-presidential nominee's husband. Sorry not to have aything more than the thought tonight...
DC
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Joseph Catron <jncatron at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:37 PM, John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
> >wrote:
>
> Huh? Which Alaskan natives aren't NDN's?
>
>
> The Aleuts and Inuit. (However, I previously revealed my ignorance;
> Amerindians do live in Alaska, but in smaller numbers than either of the
> other groups.) I don't recall the precise cultural distinctions, but
> believe
> it has something do do with the former two groups possessing historically
> distinct language families that stretch into Russia. I can e-mail my old
> linguistics professor and dig up some old articles if you're genuinely
> interested; I could obviously use a refresher myself.
>
> >
> > If tribes don't get to decide who is a tribal member then who does? Every
> > individual?
> >
>
> We've discussed this elsewhere, and I don't know that it's worth
> continuing,
> at least as an argument. But while people may not have a
> universally-recognized human right to an ethnicity, as they do to a
> nationality, the fact remains that most of us are going to call ourselves
> something, or multiple things.
>
> So I rephrase my prior question. What is someone whose ancestry is
> predominantly or overwhelmingly Aleut, or Inuit, or AmerIndian, who lacks
> tribal affiliation? Have they no ethnicity? Do they revert to the cultural
> norm of whiteness if they can pass?
>
> Yes, clearly tribal affiliation works differently. And while I understand
> part of your reasoning behind correlating the two, I simply cannot see how
> your claim that they are synonyms here can withstand logical scrutiny.
>
>
> > I do hope you see the humour in a non-native writing with regards to
> NDN's
> > "I don't know that I'm really up for addressing claims that ethnicity
> > depends upon recognition by a political authority. Like, getting tribal
> > papers..."
>
> Telling NDN's how to best manage their own affairs is someplace most white
> > people fear to tread.
>
>
> Statements such as this are typically an attempt to obscure one's claim of
> authority over others of the same group (although in this case you would
> argue that they are in fact not) with differing perspectives. I have known
> several Virginians who are indisputably and overwhelmingly of native
> descent, who consider themselves AmerIndian by heritage and culture, but
> who
> lack tribal affiliations, typically because of their descent from small
> groups that remained in place during forced migrations of larger
> populations.
>
> As you've said previously, a lot of this is semantic. To me (and a few
> others with ancestry closer to yours), ethnicity is a question of the
> cultural group from which one claims descent. To you , it's obviously
> something different. C'est la vie. I'm done, unless you have something
> particularly provocative to put on the table.
>
> --
> "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
> lytlað."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>