REFLECTING ON TRIBES AND GOVERNMENT

One of my latest writings.

REFLECTING ON TRIBES AND GOVERNMENT
bill wetzel

Some time ago my youngest brother, Tim, began telling me about a famous Indian fighter named Lewis Wetzel. Wetzel was a frontiersman who ghosted the hills of what we now know as Ohio and West Virginia in the late 18th Century. It was said the legendary Wetzel could have been more famous than either Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett had he not been such a brutal Indian killer. Renowned for his guerrilla warfare skills, purportedly among the best ever by an American, and his hatred of American Indians, Wetzel carved a bloody path in which he scalped and savaged even peaceful Indians.

One way or another, Lewis Wetzel is a relative of mine.

Ironically, I am also an American Indian, enrolled in the Blackfeet tribe, as well as having Nez Perce and Chippewa Cree blood. I was raised on a reservation and identify myself as an Indian, yet Wetzel is a German name. My bloodthirsty ancestor probably would not be all that happy knowing his relative is an Indian. I am not exactly sure about the history of my German roots. My grandfather, Blackie Wetzel has passed on and I had never asked him about where the Wetzels came from before reaching Montana. Again, my youngest brother, Tim, is the one who has done some research on the history of the Wetzel family, and about all I know from him is the general area in Germany where the Wetzels originally came from. But that is us, the Wetzel tribe. Part of the great Germanic tribal legions, I presume. It seems weird to me to identify myself as a member of any other tribe than the Blackfeet. It’s true my heritage includes two other Indian tribes as well as a few other European countries in there, but my whole cultural identity is as a Blackfeet Indian. That’s how both sides of my family, my father’s and mother’s, identify themselves. I would be surprised if any of them did otherwise. But, in reality, we are all mixed. Still, I am fascinated by all of these identities, many of which I never thought much about before. An amalgam of tribes exist within me.

What constitutes a tribe anyway?

Tribe is a fascinating word just in itself. It’s etymology is Middle English, from the Latin word tribus. Originally it meant a political division of the Roman people, representing one of the three original Roman families. Webster’s online dictionary defines it as: “a social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents, or adopted strangers” as well as: “a group of persons having a common character, occupation, or interest.” My opinion is that a tribe is a variation on these general themes. Tribes can strictly consist of families, clans and generations, as well as broadly consisting of character commonalities, occupations or interests. They are diverse. For example, all the poets in the world could consist of a tribe. People in the military could consider themselves a tribe if they chose to do so. Nothing is set in stone.

All that matters is common identity.

Yet nowadays, the word “tribe” is utilized almost exclusively in association with indigenous people. Part of this is historical. When Europeans finally came en masse to settle the United States they were already in their post-Westphalian concept of nationhood and sovereignty. They saw bands of Indians and associated them with the loose concept of tribalhood. Indian tribes to them were much like their pre-Westphalian ancestors. These “tribes” had no concept of statehood or sovereignty. To identify a group as a “tribe” was, and is, to acknowledge quaintness or give perception to an archaic culture. The other reason is that contemporary Indian tribes are now actually nations. They are identifiable as tribes because they have their own identity, ironically, in the Westphalian model. Indian tribes are now sovereign nations with their own governments. Some are even federally recognized as tribes. (as if a tribe truly needs permission from anyone identify themselves as a tribe) However, government is the key concept here.

Why?

Because of the evolution of the tribe in the contemporary United States, specifically the 1934 Wheeler-Howard Act, or The Indian Reorganization Act. The IRA secured, among other things, the right of self-government on a tribal basis. In short, Indians could have their own leaders, make their own constitution, and manage their own assets. It is also important to note that even before this reorganization, Indian tribes have had a unique relationship with the federal government, they are, in fact, a protectorate of the United States. They still have sovereignty, but they also have a certain dependence on the federal government as well. For example, they gave up the right to take arms as a nation, so they are dependent on the federal government for their own protection. This all means they have sovereignty, but it is a limited sovereignty. It is also worth it to note that tribal governments can do many interesting things on their own, some as conventional as creating their own tribal taxes or unique as minting their own currency.

This evolution of self-governance for Indian tribes is important because it is now integrated into tribal identity. Tribes define themselves by having their own governments. A tribe without it’s own government probably wouldn’t even be considered a tribe, much less an Indian nation. Getting back to the notion of what constitutes a tribe, I think it’s interesting to see the evolution of public service for tribes. In the last century the IRA has spawned a whole slew of Indian politicians running for office time and time again. Tribal councils are filled with career politicians, those who identify themselves as politicians. They share the same occupation, plus many character traits and interests. That in itself would constitute a tribe. So you see, we now have a tribe within a tribe spawned by the notion of a tribe combined with the concept of government.

I like to call it the Tribe of Bad Policy.

I'm rather busy at the moment so I apologize for not giving a more, verbose response, but damn WB, that is a great post....

just glad somebody read it. :)

I've been researching my family tree so the younger generation of my family will know who they are. What I'm constantly discovering is a US history that is not and never will be taught in schools. When I read a GA government website that showed a photo of a mansion owned by a Tsalagi chief but seized by an illiterate lottery winner, the caption said: "When the Cherokee lost their lands..." Lost? Lost?! Anyway, I didn't chime in to whine. Thank you for your strong writing on these issues.