SB> I guess I think each nation should hav the right to set its own criteria
SB> for who is a citizen of that nation.  It's a matter of "sovereignty".  I
SB> would hope, however, that blood would not usually be the only criteria
SB> used for citizenship.
I agree completely. However, there are people who cannot be enrolled members
of their nation because they in some way fail to meet the criterion (who
hasn't known a fullblood whose ancestors weren't counted?) yet are accepted
and cherished members of their nation IN REAL LIFE, although not on paper.
Most of what I object to is the "more indian that thou" stuff that I see 
oing
around; I think we all know that there's a real problem with people making
ridiculus claims to "indian-ness" when they have no real ties to their
(possibly genuine, possibly not) claimed "indian blood", but there are also 
lots of people who are indian in blood and in heart, usually raised in an 
urban environment with little contact with tribal members, who feel displaced 
and out-of-touch yet would very much like to become participants as much as 
they can in indian culture, whether through local associations, through 
activism, through enrollment in their tribe, or even through online groups 
such as this one. I think these people have a valid claim to their heritage 
and deserve more help and compassion than declamation. Of course I feel that 
way; I'm an urban mixblood myself, raised by a well-meaning but ignorant 
hite
mother in a city about 2000 miles away from either of the tribes in my 
ancestry. 
Still, I know who I am. I just feel bad for the people who are still trying 
o
figure out who they are, who find that the people they turn to for guidance 
mock them and tell them they are invalid.
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------