Us versus Them

They are up to something, I was told. Just watch, the way they are acting. They are being very quiet. That guy, who is usually pretty friendly, won’t make eye contact. He is usually reliable for a “good morning” at the very least. So-and-so seems very nervous and apprehensive. There is some tension in the air, and it is thick, just about undeniable. The ultimate historian, time, will soon let us know what is afoot. Until then I must choose between being on guard or being amused, if not both.
I like watching “Survivor”, because so often certain aspects of the show mirror my job. The bigger differences are that over here it’s not a game, and what is at stake is much more than a million dollar payday for some lucky or wily individual. Plus we don’t have physical challenges, and depending on who comprises the Council there might as well be multiple immunity idols. Other than those, a lot of details are the same-- the scheming, the alliances, the sharing of spoils for victors, the hushed conversations that suddenly end when a non-trusted person enters the vicinity.
I try to be realistic and convince myself that perhaps I am making too many assumptions, maybe once in a while my co-workers, some of whom signed their name toward efforts that amounted to ousting me last election, should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this isn’t some grand war for control of our Tribe and resources.
But as I drive towards lunch today in Willamina, it is hard not to notice the four cars of my co-workers all parked within feet of one another outside of Coyote Joes, a diner that some go to for privacy as the only other two in Grand Ronde, Legends at Spirit Mountain and Fort Hill, are like midday employee hotspots. It’s either an odd coincidence or perhaps they really are up to something.
Realistically, they very well could be deciding a major decision there that will eventually end up in chambers for a formal vote. To my knowledge there is nothing illegal about that, even if one were able to prove it. But for some reason in the present context of our Tribe, amidst some supposed effort to unite everybody, such a scenario doesn’t seem right. As a matter of fact, it would seem outright wrong, once again though not illegal, were that really the case.
But then again maybe it really wouldn’t be wrong if we were to be more open about stances on certain issues, and more importantly, whatever allegiances we may have towards one another and fellow Council members. What I mean, really, is that if this Council would be honest about whatever political alliances exist, about the fact that despite the effort to the contrary our Tribe has become so partisan that yes, there are political parties and yes, some of us belong to them.
I think back to the 2004 ABC campaign and the subsequent PPP endeavor that followed the next year. We were being very, very open about whom we were, who we supported, and what we stood for. I still think that this is the way to be in politics. The downside to that though is you take some lumps, and in Grand Ronde there was an “old guard”, to borrow a saying from some Californian Tribal Chair who was referring to the former ruling class of his own tribe, who were not too happy about our movement, probably because for some of them it meant the end of their political careers. As I’ve seen the last two elections, that same “old guard” united and won five out of six seats. In other words, they mimicked what we did. What happened in 2007 was a coordinated effort to kick out the reformers, regardless of accomplishments. I might have been lucky to survive.
I take none of that personally because historically devotion to party lines a good deal of the time means opposing someone you like and agree with on some issues. I can say with absolute certainty that in 2004 not all the incumbents deserved to be ousted so lopsidedly. But change then was desperately needed and there are bystanders to every upheaval.
What I do take personally though is promoting the notion that this is a more unified Council than before when in fact that is not the case. One group has gained control which will not be yielded for a while if at all, even if there is a change of heart in one of their members. Knowing some of the people I work with, unity will never come until their party occupies each and every seat of Council. And I am almost positive such a takeover would not be beneficial to the Tribe. Eliminating all other competing political parties is hardly unity.
There have been three decisions made since the election that smacked of partisan politics. The discussions leading up to them all had that rehearsed quality and feel to them which made me almost certain they had been plotted out beforehand. One was to stop the Constitutional election and resubmit language into three separate parts. Another is the new censorship on the “Tilixam Wawa”. The last was one made in total confidentiality last week and I am very reluctant to disclose because it seems I won’t be cut much slack, and quite frankly I am uncertain of the legal issues. But it was precedent-setting, that much I know. All three of these decisions were 6-3 votes, with the Council who ran under or endorsed the Wisdom, Integrity, Family slates voting one way, the remainder, me and two others, voting in the minority. Furthermore, they are decisions that before September 8, 2007 would have never been made.
Is Grand Ronde on its way to a two-party system? I don’t know. Parties need to stand for something, to have qualities and beliefs that they supposedly uphold and represent, and once again that requires more candidness than we’ve seen the last two years. Plus it might be easier for one party to win more converts if they deny all allegiance and blind loyalty to one another, and constantly proclaim they stand for unity...logos, slogans, and private lunches notwithstanding.