Covering Indian Country Blog

Tribal Recognition and Identity

A tribe by any other name

This is just a quick observation from Tuesday’s presentation by Suzan Shown Harjo, a columnist for Indian Country Today.

Her final word of advice – not to refer to an Indian “nation” as a “tribe”—clearly demonstrated the need for better communication between the tribes and the media by raising what I consider a minor distinction born of understandable sensitivities that have developed during the media’s strained relationship with Indian country.

Although Harjo said the distinction marked a sign of respect, I see no harm in referring to an Indian nation—on second reference, of course—as a “tribe,” a widely accepted term (which to my knowledge has no derogatory meaning) used to describe the country’s 560-plus federally recognized tribes.

Of course, specific first references – as in all cases – should use a tribe’s formal name.

That said, I have begun several stories, “Maine’s two largest Indian tribes …,” and have never received negative feedback from the Penobscot Indian Nation, one of four Maine tribes I cover. Nor have I been challenged when referring to the Aroostook Band of Micmac as a “tribe” rather than a “band.”

But Harjo’s advice, although I question its premise, will make me ask tribal leaders for their perspective when we next meet.

This is not to say I will change what I believe to be the sound journalistic practice of using general terms on second reference. I will, however, explain it.

Regrettably, such explanations have not always been so readily offered to Indian country.

-- Jeff Tuttle, Bangor (Maine) Daily News

Posted on 03.11.05 at 4:11 AM by Victor Merina