Gyasi Ross: Tribal nations should be about the collective good

Observing many modern-day Tribal organizations, I think this quick history lesson begs a question: What happens when the people of a particular Tribe or Nation cease to live in a discreet area (a topic for another day), or more importantly, stop having common interests and taking care of each other? What do you call a group of Native people who no longer associate with each other and whose only common interest is in the success of the gaming enterprise or other economic development interest? Is that still a “Tribe” or “Nation?”

When groups of Native people—legally bound together as tribes, but with no other meaningful connection—ostensibly hate each other, do they really deserve to be called a “tribe” or “nation?”

Maybe. But maybe not. Still, at least in theory tribes and nations are supposed to be about the collective good.

In recent times, there have been very public stories about factions of a particular tribe essentially going to war with other factions within that same tribe. I’ve anecdotally noticed that the vitriol in tribal campaigns has gotten more personal and nastier progressively every campaign season—yet, those same politicians play nice when in front of non-Native cameras or non-Native elected officials.