What is the inference of "No More Tribes" in Obama's

[Bobbieo]

inaugural speech. I can't find it anywhere and understand many Native Americans are upset about those words.

[Jamastiene]

1. That sounds more like we are all Americans not splintered groups of people.

I don't think he meant anything about Native American tribes, per se. I'd have to hear it again to be able to explain it in detail, but I'm sure he meant something to the effect of coming together.

[MADem]

11. I think he used the term in a world wide sense.

We aren't the only people who have tribes, after all. Every country has them, or has had them. We still deal with tribal leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan (in fact, we bribe the old ones with four wives who are feeling a bit droopy with VIAGRA--really).

In some countries, they call them clans -- of course, that might not have been a good synonym in this instance, given that some would think he was spelling the word with a K.

It's all the same deal--a group of people with shared genetic, geographic, cultural and religious views who band together for a common purpose.

Perhaps he would have been just as well served by saying we're all members of the same larger American tribe--but then, he might have caught flak for that, too.

[Avalux]

2. He was referring to people dividing against each other.

Where did you hear Native Americans were upset? Had nothing to do with them. :shrug:

[Bobbieo]

5. Heard it from a couple of Native Americans in relationship to my Native Unity post.

[Avalux]

7. I just edited my post after re-reading the text.

Obama used the word "tribes" in a very broad sense; not about any particular group of people as I thought. Sorry the Native Americans you've heard from have misinterpreted; hopefully you can explain.

[Bobbieo]

8. I intend to explain it in my column - The ladies from Mohawk Nation News (Canadian)

really got bent out of shape about it. I hope I was able to straighten them out. They mistakenly understood religions to be referring to tribes.

[MADem]

12. Those ladies had better be made to understand they don't own the patent on the word TRIBE.

They'll have to deal with a bunch of guys in turbans on the other side of the world who are tribal leaders....to say nothing of the tribal leaders in Africa and Asia as well.

The Jews use the word, too, to describe themselves, but they don't get huffy when others use it to describe an association based on common factors...!

[sandnsea]

3. Here

He wasn't talking about Indian tribes, but they can take it that way if they insist on choosing to be offended when someone is actually talking about inclusiveness.

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace."

[RDANGELO]

4. I think he was talking about tribalism as a human instinct

not about Indian tribes. For instance, a person who acts politically as a white christian American instead of just an American.

[Sinistrous]

9. Exactly.

[snot]

6. My own take

I took it as referring to tribes within a nation warring among themselves, destroying people and their nation in the process -- this has certainly been known to happen, though I don't know enough about Native American history to know if it ever happened among them.

[stillcool]

10. it was the world...

not the American Indian

The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."