An addendum to last night

I know I have brought up both Phillip Deloria and Vine Deloria Jr. a lot recently...but then again, when you pile though 5 or 6 books by someone in a relatively short period of time they are likely to somewhat dominate your thought processes. This is particularly true if you are engaged by what they write and take notes.
One of my notes from Custer Died for Your Sins was this; "Peoplehood is impossible without cultural independence , which in turn is impossible without a land base." He is arguing that the continual seizure and selling of Reservation lands is essentially cultural geonocide towards Native Americans. It is hard to get the sense and feel for just one passage of a book, but his point really struck to the heart of part of the discourse over Federal responsibility towards Native Americans.
I see certain flaws to the argument. Those flaws are directed towards his interpretation of peoplehood, not the responsibility of the government.
For instance, the Jews had no homeland for around 1900 years yet managed to retain a distinct culture, religion, and sense of nationality that was reawakened and exacerberated by Herders' theory of "the volk".
That theory alone is intriguing. What exactly does constitute a nation? Is it whomever happens to live within the borders as defined by whatever central government exists?
If this is true then where do nomadic groups such as the gypsies fall? Are they French while in France, German while in Germany, Austrian while in...well, you get the point.
How large a part of Vietnam are the hill tribes? They do not participate in National politics and, indeed, may not even be aware of them. They have little to no interest in modernity. Yet they live within the borders just as they have for thousands of years. To an anthropologist or ethnologist they would be considered "part of the rich ethnical tapestry of Vietnam" or some such pointless platitude. But what do they mean to the modern, integrated Vietnamese?
There are a lot of indigenous peoples across the world that are not part of modern society. Guns, cars, planes, television, radio, modern medicine...these things are not part of their lives and, in some cases, not even part of their awareness. Are they part of the nations wherein they reside?
Or is nationality a matter of culture? After all, right now the push is on to call people "African American" and "Asian American" and "Arab American" and so forth. There is only one hyphen I use, and that is an on-again/off-again thing...that would be Native American. I only use that one because, indeed, Indian is a term that shows only the hubris and ignorance of the "discoverers" of this continent...is there really an accurate designation? Is "Asian American" acceptable or should it be "Chinese American" and "Korean American" and so forth? Because seriously...saying all "Asians" are alike is, frankly, quite stupid. There are many cultures found within the peoples we would group under that heading.
Perhaps a "peoplehood" or nationality is defined by shared experiences. The argument can arise from people who remember the activist and confrontational portion of the Civil Rights of the 50s and 60s and early 70s. The stakes were residue of the slavery from a hundred and more years prior, but the discourse assumed familiarity and responsibility towards those actions. It was the shared memory that allowed the discourse to take place.
Listen to the public discourse today over Iraq. "Vietnam" is thrown around an awful lot because it is part of the shared memory...or at least is supposed to be. But at the same time that is taking place there is a discourse over the "illegal immigrants' from Mexico.
These people are a vibrant part of culture in Texas, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, and likely many other states. Do the immigrants, both legal and otherwise, have memory of Vietnam and what it meant to the U.S.? Then how can shared memory define peoplehood?
Sometimes people talk about "natural boundaries" for nations. I find this ridiculous. Boundaries are completely artificial and arbitrary for the most part. Go back and look into how the line between Canada and the U.S. was debated. Consider the places still under debate as to whether they are Canadian or U.S. If boundaries are natural, why is the world in such dissaray over boundary disputes?
Perhaps peoplehood is a matter of descent. All "Aryans" are a people, all Anglo-Saxons are a peo...wait...the Angle, Saxon, and Jute tribes that comprise the Anglo-Saxons are THREE forerunners. I guess we have to throw that one out too.
No, I have no definition for what does or does not constitute peoplehood. In fact, I am pretty sure the answer is one that is in flux a great deal of the time. People change, ideas change, and interactions change.
It all comes back in some way to personal responsibility. If there is a group of people you identify as "your people" then you have a responsibility to care for their well-being and to do whatever you can to move it forward. Watch over them, protect them, and never play a tuba at midnight.