Those of us familiar with the recognition process know how/why it came about (i.e., colonization); about the politics surrounding the recognition process (i.e., colonization); and why it is difficult to gain recognition (i.e., colonization). Yes, colonization.

There are a number of Native Nations across this country that maintained societal cohesion (in spite of horrendous social and political actions committed against them). As a general rule of thumb, I think it’s disgusting to degrade a community’s identity because they haven’t been able to successfully navigate a lengthy and complex bureaucratic process (that is specifically designed for tribes to fail). So to say a tribe is not a tribe because they have been unsuccessful at gaining state and federal recognition is victim blaming.

Now, I cannot speak to Reed’s identity or her community’s status because I am unfamiliar with their historical and political contexts. I am not defending her. But what I can speak to is the underlying assumption of this article: should state and federal definitions of Nativeness (based upon longstanding colonization ideologies) set the bar for measuring the legitimacy of a tribe’s identity?