C'mon, Steve...I get into hundreds of controversies every month that are dumber than Obama's "lines of tribe" comment. The intent of a brief scene in a 1994 episode of Babylon 5, for instance. Are you seriously suggesting that Obama's address to an audience of billions is less significant than that?
True, I wouldn't say this controversy is a big one. But I wouldn't put it in the bottom 20% of Native controversies either. It's significant enough to merit one or two (or three) postings.
The nays have it
I agree with the comments on this essay rather than the essay itself. Here you go:
With all due respect, I found this to be rambling, disjointed and somewhat incoherent. What is described as "tribalism" sounds more to me like "elitism" and "nepotism."
12:19 PM Another POV wrote ...
To many people, “lines of tribe” is not a negative. Good communication is not just what you say, but how you are heard. I know what Pres. Obama was trying to say, but no passing grade. It was a poor choice of words. Nothing more, nothing less.
12:04 PM Rob wrote ...
Steve Russell is presumably talking about this article:
Steve's argument is basically, "Obama meant the bad kind of tribalism, not the good kind." The critics' argument is basically, "Regardless of what Obama meant, some tribal members think he chose his words poorly." In other words, the critics considered what Obama meant before they said "regardless of what he meant" or the like. Therefore, Steve's argument isn't persuasive.
Below: One way to "dissolve the lines of tribe." Bang, bang...they're dissolved.