@ lizziphel: You're right. They can't have it two ways; they get it three ways. They are citizens of their respective tribes, citizens of the US, and citizens of the State of Washington. Let's have a little history lesson...treaties are a grant of rights "FROM the tribes TO the state". NOT the other way around. Tribes gave up land, access, whatever FOR SPECIFICALLY RESERVED rights, FOREVER. They were here FIRST and "Americans" basically squatted on the lands and asserted claim resulting from Doctrine of Discovery and later, Manifest Destiny...That's fancy terminology that means it's ok to steal anything and everything and remove the original inhabitants. Believe me, the Church spent a lot of time thinking about how to word that and make it acceptable to God, at least that's what they said.
Nationwide, out of approximately 800 treaties, only 400 or so were ratified. Let's jump to the ambitious Isaac Stevens (you all know who he was). Mr. Stevens was notorious for having the army in the background when he was imposing treaties. Even though experienced interpreters were available to discuss treaties and very familiar with the different tribes' languages, Stevens insisted on using interpreters who spoke the Chinook jargon which tribes struggled with and had a difficult time understanding. Also, Stevens "selected" tribal members to sign the treaties and identified them as chiefs or leaders of the signing tribes, when in fact, they were not. Years after these treaties were signed, one respected judge reviewed the process and outcome and labeled it as "criminal" and said that Stevens should have been prosecuted for his unscrupulous actions.
Maybe tribes should have been given the choice to "decide" at the very beginning of this unconscionable theft of land and culture. Of course, the choice should have been made after the tribes were fully informed of what was going to happen. What do you think? I think it's an outrage.
Have a nice day.