The public is in no position to know this, but both columns are the result of a long discussion about the issues among Steve Newcomb and myself and a number of others. I'm pretty satisfied with the public exchange the way it is even if puzzled by a couple of ad hominem remarks. You will note that I use the terms "nation" and "citizenship" in spite of my discomfort, because they just work better in the context than the other options, and "citizenship" seems to me always appropriate except when discussing "Indian" as ethnicity, as in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And I concede Steve's point about the power of language, even though "nation" in this context yields to the analogy I used. There is more to the discussion that I hope becomes public, much of it not contained in my remarks or Steve's. We both labor under space limitations. Note that I do not advocate for "tribe," but I do use it, like "nation," when it fits. I can offer no appellation that fits all Indian nations/federally recognized tribes in all circumstances.
Friday, March 23, 2012 - 15:29