Tribal and intertribal Native American identity

A ceremony is making a comeback, and that's supposed to mean the culture is disappearing? I want to know what has changed about the ceremony. Maybe the sociologists have a good reason for that interpretation, but its growing popularity alone wouldn't get us there.

The next sentence gives us their reason: tribes increasingly share dances and rituals. Instead of practices belonging to particular tribes, more practices now cross tribal boundaries. The sociologists predict two losses from this trend. First, individual tribes will dissolve. Then Native Americans will become completely assimilated into Euroamerican society. Keep those steps separate. Sharing a dance with another tribe isn't, by itself, the same thing as losing a Native American identity altogether.

The rest of paragraph 1 gives possible reasons for the increased sharing: more travel and communication between reservations, more people moving to cities, and political activity in response to common grievances. We don't need to memorize that list. We need to recognize its job. These are the trends the sociologists use to explain increasing intertribalism. The bigger question is whether that increase leads where they say it does.

Paragraph 2 initially concedes their evidence. Dance styles, outfits, and songs really are spreading between reservations. Then “However” introduces what the sociologists have missed: traditions unique to individual tribes are also becoming stronger. Wait—if these distinct tribal identities are disappearing, how do we explain the renewed interest in their traditions?

The Lakota Sun Dance, revived after forty years, gives us one example. The renewed popularity of the Kiowa's Black Legging Society and the Ponca's Hethuska Society gives us two more. Their shared role matters more than keeping three separate names in our heads: intertribal activity and distinct tribal traditions are growing at the same time. That is why the writer calls the change “more complex” than the theory can explain.

Paragraph 3 asks what assumption sits beneath the prediction. The theory assumes that minority societies immediately begin to succumb “in every respect” when they encounter a majority society. That's a sweeping claim. Does contact really mean that every part of a culture starts giving way?

The writer responds that “there is no evidence” this is happening to Native American groups. That wording is strong too. We can question it as we read, but we need to keep its target straight: the sweeping account of assimilation just described. The writer isn't denying every instance of outside influence. In fact, we're about to see English being used at powwows. Our own reaction to the claim and the claim we must accurately report are separate things.

Paragraph 4 puts the two kinds of activity side by side. Some dances are announced as intertribal; others are traditional. An opening speech may be in English, while the following prayer is in a native language. So borrowing is happening, but it hasn't erased the distinction. The important observation is that Native Americans consciously maintain that distinction themselves.

The final paragraph explains why both can survive. Tribal activities connect people with a particular tribe. Intertribal activities reinforce a broader Native American identity against outside influences. Think of someone identifying as both a Coloradan and an American: belonging to the broader group doesn't automatically eliminate the more specific identity. The analogy helps us see how two levels of belonging can coexist; it doesn't make the histories of those groups identical.

Now the response to the sociologists is clear. Yes, intertribalism is strong. But that doesn't mean tribalism is finished, and broader Native American cooperation can help resist the assimilation the sociologists predict. The same development they treat as a step toward disappearance can serve a protective role.