cohoangler,

I can see your point about the difference in race and a tribe. I guess the point i was trying to make, was that a certain race/ethnic backgound usually make up these tribes or nation, or at least a major percentage. If it didn't, how could someone then be blamed for racism when complaining about a tribal abuse? Yes, I can see that the treaties were made for a different tribal nations, but being that these nations are made up of distinct races/ethnic makeup(major percentage) Is why cries of racism come up when complaining about actions performed by them. You don't hear cries of racism when people complain about the canadians salmon fishing policies, even when comments about canadian stereotypes are used.
I go back to my original point that it is a challenge to criticize tribal actions, because the "Nation" is made up of a certain racial/ethnic background. I submit that it is not due to their race, but their tribal affiliation. But 9 out of 10 times, being from a tribe is also being of a distinct ethnic background. And because of this, criticism of the tribe can be wrongly assumed to be a criticism of the ethnic group.
(I guess I should use ethnic background instead of race, I was using it interchangeably, probably wrongly so)

You made a point about different groups, being accepted into the tribe. I would argue that this happens very rarely. And tribal ethnic backgrounds are still unique. Especially these groups being given full fishing and hunting rights.
Also making comparison to the germans?!? They used race and nation as an excuse for completely different wrong purpose. The discussion here was about how criticism of a tribe is difficult, because of the major ethnic makeup of the tribe, and how tribal criticism can be wrongly related to ethnic group criticism. I really don't see How the two are even comparable, or relevant.
Though I don't think we agree on several points. I appreciate the discussion.

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Mike K ]