ncooty

Again, the series gets bogged down in vague bleating (with up-talk) rather than clear exposition. The series has a habit of wallowing in individual examples that, by virtue of their particular details (often including the negligence or complicity of tribal members), obfuscate the central questions. The series focuses on criticizing the arguments against tribal sovereignty, but doesn't actually make a positive case or assertion. It's just a constant focus on identity-based victimhood. For example, the central question of this episode was: How is tribal membership determined or established? The host has previously scoffed at the idea that a person could be a tribal member with 0% tribal blood, yet has also scoffed at the imposition of "blood-quantum" criteria from Dawes. So which is it? She says that tribal membership is a legal status, but seems oblivious to the question of how that status is determined (especially for establishment, but presumably also for revocation). She just