This week, I’ve handed the newsletter over to Chris La Tray — who you may remember from this interview a few months ago. One great pleasure of running this newsletter = the ability to use it as a space to interview others at length, and watching you, as a readership, respond to, push back on, and just generally appreciate their ideas. Because many of you have opted to
I practice juvenile law and a major piece of legislation in the area is the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which requires child welfare agencies to make greater efforts to maintain and reunite Indian families because of the horrific history of family separation. The higher standard makes a real difference in our cases. ICWA requires that the child be enrolled or eligible for enrollment in a federally-recognized tribe. Because tribes make vastly different decisions about enrollment, we see very different outcomes for families. For example, I once represented a mom who was enrolled in a tribe. Her daughter, however, has not eligible, because she had less than 1/4 blood quantum from the particular tribe. (It's also very complicated because the BQ has to be from one tribe, I believe). On the other hand, I've represented kids who have 1/16 BQ and are enrolled members and receive the protection of ICWA, which practically speaking usually means parents' rights are never terminated.
Yeah, this gets into the discussion of BQ, which truly is the hellmouth. And it sucks, because as the saying goes, the only ones besides Indians who need such paperings to determine who we are are dogs and horses. The United States has a deep, ongoing history of separating non-white children from their families, we see it happening on the southern border today. You are doing incredibly important work, Jennifer. I hope it doesn't burn you you out.
Thank you for your kindness. I both think it's important and sometimes I wonder if I'm propping up the system by being part of it. Like many things, I can't say that I have a good answer.
Thanks for this!! I LOVE what you're working on, it's sticky and complex and has no clear, easy answers.
I watched Trickster and am a big fan of Eden Robinson's books. I'm from BC and live on Coast Salish land, so recognize my bias in this but I think the show is a lot of great fun and people should watch it. It has the pulpy otherworldliness of True Blood while sharing a lot of Indigenous culture. My understanding was that Latimer and the show had consulted with Indigenous communities to be as true to cultural history as possible for some of the more "Indigenous" scenes and plot lines. I've never seen a show that has so many Indigenous characters and actors and music and especially one that received the production budget it deserved. I was livid about the news of Latimer's identity and the subsequent cancellation, that the hard work and incredibly, rich storytelling and beauty of this community now has this mar on it. It *seems* like Latimer was trying to approach the subject matter with consideration but had she never identified her tribe/nation and went with "I am not sure but my family has always identified as xyz" would that be permissible? Who knows? Inconvenient Indian was a turning point for me in terms of understanding the legacy of colonialism in Canada and I have recommended and referred to thomas King's Inconvenient Indian as ESSENTIAL reading to others, but now with this info I feel a bit squicky doing so, or at least feel obliged to share that intel those I recommend it to, and worry that or might alienate people. But what if they miss the opportunity to transform the way they think about history, nationhood, colonialism, and Indigenous peoples and culture? When is someone "allowed" to make art that is not representative of their own culture? To me, and this is def an ignorant opinion, it *feels* like a colonial approach to draw lines in the sand and say "you are either xyz culture or NOT," as you highlight in the conversation around BQ (Have you seen the movie Blood Quantum??? It's an Indigenous zombie movie and is very fun!) These are just rhetorical questions and have no expectations for you to reply or acknowledge but I appreciate the article and it had inspired a lively conversation in my household.
Tina, thank you. Right here, when you say, "I have recommended and referred to thomas King's Inconvenient Indian as ESSENTIAL reading to others, but now with this info I feel a bit squicky doing so, or at least feel obliged to share that intel those I recommend it to, and worry that or might alienate people," perfectly illustrates the problem. Because what proof is there that King is anything but what he has been accepted to be? I hesitated to even use his name from the list but it tied to perfectly to the overall story. Fingers get pointed, doubt gets seeded, and then a book so many people have taken value from comes to question because of ... what? Which is why this friggin' list is so insidious.
"Blood Quantum" is on my list to see, yes. I hope no one got too unruly in your household.
We had discussed, kinda in reference to King, that sometimes it's the work that matters most (?) I agree with your frustration (assuming that's the sentiment?) with identity politics, but I live in a very white community, where I am fairly often the only non-white person in the room, especially in professional settings and I find that despite the summer of 2020's racial reckoning a lot of white people aren't prepared to see *themselves* as a race. So it's not that I want to muddy the waters of what I call "brown people business" (a community to which I feel like I belong) with justifications and verifying, but I want the people who have benefitted from colonialism to feel at least a little bit of the complex reckoning that the rest of us spend so much time considering.
I worked at a university where land acknowledgements are a prerequisite and major meetings (almost always led by a white person) always kick off with a half hearted, or read from a script acknowledgment. I attended a student-led "kitchen table" gathering and they approached it a bit differently, where any and all speakers were encouraged to introduce themselves, with preferred pronouns and share their origins and how they came to be on the land that we were on. It felt very good to be in a room of people who had done at least some reckoning with their cultural/racial identity and thought about how it related to being on unceded territory
"I want the people who have benefitted from colonialism to feel at least a little bit of the complex reckoning that the rest of us spend so much time considering."
This, yes. And I've ranted about land acknowledgements on my own newsletter a couple times. My short take on them is they are the progressive person's version of "thoughts and prayers." Lots of hand-wringing but no action. Until there is action related to them, they are meaningless.
I struggle too with the notion that it's the work that matters because even that can be another way of perpetuating colonialism. For example, white writer parachutes into a community, tells a story—maybe even a very important store—and then leaves, taking the story and reaping the benefits. That is just another way colonialism takes and takes from us, and sometimes Indigenous people are their own worst enemy. I think about it a lot.
To bring it back to this whole pretendians thing, I do believe it is important to hold people accountable to what they claim to be. I'm just not cool with there being some public list of "alleged" individuals with nothing there to support it.
I feel really, really sad reading this, because I am multiracial and mostly identity as Black, but my Black side of the family says that we are also Blackfoot/Blackfeet, although we have zero proof of this. But I have felt a pull to learn more about my Blackfoot culture, language, and history. I would never ask to be put on the tribal roll, but I feel like it isn’t hurting anyone for me to identify personally with the ancestry that has been passed down oraally, outside of colonial oversight and approval, which feels right and just as valid as any other “proof”. Black people who are descendants of enslaved people have also been robbed of our culture and land, just in a different way. That is something that connects my two most important heritages. But I get a lot of hate from Black people who say I am too light-skinned to be Black (my Black family oral history states one side was enslaved by an Irish enslaver and that is why so many on that side are light skinned). Generally I look a lot like my Black Grandmas and Aunties but my birth mother is white, so I’m even more light skinned. All that is to say that I feel I have been robbed of the opportunity to live and be immersed in my ancestral heritage and then I’m also hated for wanting to get some of that back. I feel like this hyper fixation on proving that people aren’t Native/Indian/Indigenous enough feels like borrowing from the colonizer playlist. Would I promote myself as an Indigenous creator? I wouldn’t say that it is a primary identity. But I would mention that it is important to me personally and acknowledge that it is something I value. I’m tired of the hatred we have amongst ourselves. It’s exhausting.
It is exhausting, Tara, and I have deep empathy for your situation. It's particularly frustrating because we cling to these colonial notions of who is and who isn't—usually who isn't—from one side of our brain while raving about decolonizing out of the other. There aren't easy answers, but I would say you should continue honoring whatever part of your legacy you choose to, and everyone else can fuck off.
This makes me feel so sad. My family story holds that we are Māori but due to lost/stolen generations we can’t trace our lineage with any degree of veracity. All we have is a handful of photos, some taonga and memories of some oral history. We certainly don’t claim anything, but I feel that to deny the little we know is to disrespect our ancestry. It’s very hard.
I don't know what I love more, this piece or the conversation it's generated in the comments. This was one of the most tightly written and thought-provoking things I've read in a long time, and it has applications far beyond even the subjects discussed here that I'm kind of excited to think about. I had no idea about this list and feel like it has implications for a variety of issues. As Tina Athena says below, "it's sticky and complex with no clear answers" and I am so, so grateful that you're helping the rest of us wade into it.
This piece is excellent, and thanks for sharing your perspective. This part, "Which is why tribes need to throw out blood quantum requirements and all that settler bureaucracy and determine for ourselves how we want to build our nations. Enroll people committed to being members of the tribe, just like any other nation does, blood purity be damned. Like we did pre-colonialism. That is the only way we survive" really struck me—a lot to reflect on.
I really appreciated reading this. I think you’ve given us a really thoughtful take on this topic, and it’s not one I’ve previously given in-depth consideration.
And this is a very small, largely tangential thing but when I read the words “a streaming service called The CW, which I hadn't heard of until about ten minutes ago”, I felt a small part of my soul leave my body only to be replaced by a bigger, cleaner piece of soul. This sentence fragment purified me. (I have given far too much of my life and attention to the CW and it is excellent for you that you have not.) I’m sorry that you will only get one season of this show via them.
One thing I find striking about how the whole BQ business has evolved is the contrast with the 'one-drop-rule' that white society used to employ to decide whether someone was Black or white. Sally Hemings was "whiter" than you, but she, and her children by a white man, could be held in bondage for life.
Transitions are always a little rough, but it seems to me that as a society we'll be better off when people stop claiming a heritage that isn't theirs. It's my unscientific sense that a lot less of this is Dolezal-style outright fraud, and more is Warren-style unthinking repetition of a family story. And what's the harm? When Warren's employers sent out forms to ask about the background of its faculty, they weren't trying to find out who had a cool, if hazy, family story. No, they were trying (supposedly) to see how they were doing at opening their ranks to different perspectives, and historically disadvantaged people. Even if she didn't take a slot that would have gone to someone else, she gave the system the wrong answer as to how well it was doing.
No one likes self-appointed enforcers, but it is fair, I think, to expect that people who are touting their heritage as part of their marketing have done some minimal due diligence to make sure they're being honest.
I practice juvenile law and a major piece of legislation in the area is the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which requires child welfare agencies to make greater efforts to maintain and reunite Indian families because of the horrific history of family separation. The higher standard makes a real difference in our cases. ICWA requires that the child be enrolled or eligible for enrollment in a federally-recognized tribe. Because tribes make vastly different decisions about enrollment, we see very different outcomes for families. For example, I once represented a mom who was enrolled in a tribe. Her daughter, however, has not eligible, because she had less than 1/4 blood quantum from the particular tribe. (It's also very complicated because the BQ has to be from one tribe, I believe). On the other hand, I've represented kids who have 1/16 BQ and are enrolled members and receive the protection of ICWA, which practically speaking usually means parents' rights are never terminated.
Yeah, this gets into the discussion of BQ, which truly is the hellmouth. And it sucks, because as the saying goes, the only ones besides Indians who need such paperings to determine who we are are dogs and horses. The United States has a deep, ongoing history of separating non-white children from their families, we see it happening on the southern border today. You are doing incredibly important work, Jennifer. I hope it doesn't burn you you out.
Thank you for your kindness. I both think it's important and sometimes I wonder if I'm propping up the system by being part of it. Like many things, I can't say that I have a good answer.
Thanks for this!! I LOVE what you're working on, it's sticky and complex and has no clear, easy answers.
I watched Trickster and am a big fan of Eden Robinson's books. I'm from BC and live on Coast Salish land, so recognize my bias in this but I think the show is a lot of great fun and people should watch it. It has the pulpy otherworldliness of True Blood while sharing a lot of Indigenous culture. My understanding was that Latimer and the show had consulted with Indigenous communities to be as true to cultural history as possible for some of the more "Indigenous" scenes and plot lines. I've never seen a show that has so many Indigenous characters and actors and music and especially one that received the production budget it deserved. I was livid about the news of Latimer's identity and the subsequent cancellation, that the hard work and incredibly, rich storytelling and beauty of this community now has this mar on it. It *seems* like Latimer was trying to approach the subject matter with consideration but had she never identified her tribe/nation and went with "I am not sure but my family has always identified as xyz" would that be permissible? Who knows? Inconvenient Indian was a turning point for me in terms of understanding the legacy of colonialism in Canada and I have recommended and referred to thomas King's Inconvenient Indian as ESSENTIAL reading to others, but now with this info I feel a bit squicky doing so, or at least feel obliged to share that intel those I recommend it to, and worry that or might alienate people. But what if they miss the opportunity to transform the way they think about history, nationhood, colonialism, and Indigenous peoples and culture? When is someone "allowed" to make art that is not representative of their own culture? To me, and this is def an ignorant opinion, it *feels* like a colonial approach to draw lines in the sand and say "you are either xyz culture or NOT," as you highlight in the conversation around BQ (Have you seen the movie Blood Quantum??? It's an Indigenous zombie movie and is very fun!) These are just rhetorical questions and have no expectations for you to reply or acknowledge but I appreciate the article and it had inspired a lively conversation in my household.
Tina, thank you. Right here, when you say, "I have recommended and referred to thomas King's Inconvenient Indian as ESSENTIAL reading to others, but now with this info I feel a bit squicky doing so, or at least feel obliged to share that intel those I recommend it to, and worry that or might alienate people," perfectly illustrates the problem. Because what proof is there that King is anything but what he has been accepted to be? I hesitated to even use his name from the list but it tied to perfectly to the overall story. Fingers get pointed, doubt gets seeded, and then a book so many people have taken value from comes to question because of ... what? Which is why this friggin' list is so insidious.
"Blood Quantum" is on my list to see, yes. I hope no one got too unruly in your household.
We had discussed, kinda in reference to King, that sometimes it's the work that matters most (?) I agree with your frustration (assuming that's the sentiment?) with identity politics, but I live in a very white community, where I am fairly often the only non-white person in the room, especially in professional settings and I find that despite the summer of 2020's racial reckoning a lot of white people aren't prepared to see *themselves* as a race. So it's not that I want to muddy the waters of what I call "brown people business" (a community to which I feel like I belong) with justifications and verifying, but I want the people who have benefitted from colonialism to feel at least a little bit of the complex reckoning that the rest of us spend so much time considering.
I worked at a university where land acknowledgements are a prerequisite and major meetings (almost always led by a white person) always kick off with a half hearted, or read from a script acknowledgment. I attended a student-led "kitchen table" gathering and they approached it a bit differently, where any and all speakers were encouraged to introduce themselves, with preferred pronouns and share their origins and how they came to be on the land that we were on. It felt very good to be in a room of people who had done at least some reckoning with their cultural/racial identity and thought about how it related to being on unceded territory
"I want the people who have benefitted from colonialism to feel at least a little bit of the complex reckoning that the rest of us spend so much time considering."
This, yes. And I've ranted about land acknowledgements on my own newsletter a couple times. My short take on them is they are the progressive person's version of "thoughts and prayers." Lots of hand-wringing but no action. Until there is action related to them, they are meaningless.
I struggle too with the notion that it's the work that matters because even that can be another way of perpetuating colonialism. For example, white writer parachutes into a community, tells a story—maybe even a very important store—and then leaves, taking the story and reaping the benefits. That is just another way colonialism takes and takes from us, and sometimes Indigenous people are their own worst enemy. I think about it a lot.
To bring it back to this whole pretendians thing, I do believe it is important to hold people accountable to what they claim to be. I'm just not cool with there being some public list of "alleged" individuals with nothing there to support it.
I feel really, really sad reading this, because I am multiracial and mostly identity as Black, but my Black side of the family says that we are also Blackfoot/Blackfeet, although we have zero proof of this. But I have felt a pull to learn more about my Blackfoot culture, language, and history. I would never ask to be put on the tribal roll, but I feel like it isn’t hurting anyone for me to identify personally with the ancestry that has been passed down oraally, outside of colonial oversight and approval, which feels right and just as valid as any other “proof”. Black people who are descendants of enslaved people have also been robbed of our culture and land, just in a different way. That is something that connects my two most important heritages. But I get a lot of hate from Black people who say I am too light-skinned to be Black (my Black family oral history states one side was enslaved by an Irish enslaver and that is why so many on that side are light skinned). Generally I look a lot like my Black Grandmas and Aunties but my birth mother is white, so I’m even more light skinned. All that is to say that I feel I have been robbed of the opportunity to live and be immersed in my ancestral heritage and then I’m also hated for wanting to get some of that back. I feel like this hyper fixation on proving that people aren’t Native/Indian/Indigenous enough feels like borrowing from the colonizer playlist. Would I promote myself as an Indigenous creator? I wouldn’t say that it is a primary identity. But I would mention that it is important to me personally and acknowledge that it is something I value. I’m tired of the hatred we have amongst ourselves. It’s exhausting.
It is exhausting, Tara, and I have deep empathy for your situation. It's particularly frustrating because we cling to these colonial notions of who is and who isn't—usually who isn't—from one side of our brain while raving about decolonizing out of the other. There aren't easy answers, but I would say you should continue honoring whatever part of your legacy you choose to, and everyone else can fuck off.
This makes me feel so sad. My family story holds that we are Māori but due to lost/stolen generations we can’t trace our lineage with any degree of veracity. All we have is a handful of photos, some taonga and memories of some oral history. We certainly don’t claim anything, but I feel that to deny the little we know is to disrespect our ancestry. It’s very hard.
It is very hard indeed. But your ancestors are watching, and they know.
Chris, I learn something new every time your name pops up in my inbox. Today, there were too many new somethings to count. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you, Kirsten. I appreciate that.
I don't know what I love more, this piece or the conversation it's generated in the comments. This was one of the most tightly written and thought-provoking things I've read in a long time, and it has applications far beyond even the subjects discussed here that I'm kind of excited to think about. I had no idea about this list and feel like it has implications for a variety of issues. As Tina Athena says below, "it's sticky and complex with no clear answers" and I am so, so grateful that you're helping the rest of us wade into it.
Thank you, Nia.
This piece is excellent, and thanks for sharing your perspective. This part, "Which is why tribes need to throw out blood quantum requirements and all that settler bureaucracy and determine for ourselves how we want to build our nations. Enroll people committed to being members of the tribe, just like any other nation does, blood purity be damned. Like we did pre-colonialism. That is the only way we survive" really struck me—a lot to reflect on.
Thank you, Julia.
Christyjust now
I really appreciated reading this. I think you’ve given us a really thoughtful take on this topic, and it’s not one I’ve previously given in-depth consideration.
And this is a very small, largely tangential thing but when I read the words “a streaming service called The CW, which I hadn't heard of until about ten minutes ago”, I felt a small part of my soul leave my body only to be replaced by a bigger, cleaner piece of soul. This sentence fragment purified me. (I have given far too much of my life and attention to the CW and it is excellent for you that you have not.) I’m sorry that you will only get one season of this show via them.
I love this. I strive to be in the business of bigger, cleaner souls. :)
Tried to edit, got a little weird! Sorry, this was my first and then second and now third comment. I’ll get there! Thanks for your patience.
I liked this. Thank you!
It's legacy of oppression all the way down.
One thing I find striking about how the whole BQ business has evolved is the contrast with the 'one-drop-rule' that white society used to employ to decide whether someone was Black or white. Sally Hemings was "whiter" than you, but she, and her children by a white man, could be held in bondage for life.
Transitions are always a little rough, but it seems to me that as a society we'll be better off when people stop claiming a heritage that isn't theirs. It's my unscientific sense that a lot less of this is Dolezal-style outright fraud, and more is Warren-style unthinking repetition of a family story. And what's the harm? When Warren's employers sent out forms to ask about the background of its faculty, they weren't trying to find out who had a cool, if hazy, family story. No, they were trying (supposedly) to see how they were doing at opening their ranks to different perspectives, and historically disadvantaged people. Even if she didn't take a slot that would have gone to someone else, she gave the system the wrong answer as to how well it was doing.
No one likes self-appointed enforcers, but it is fair, I think, to expect that people who are touting their heritage as part of their marketing have done some minimal due diligence to make sure they're being honest.
Yes, my problem is entirely with the self-appointed enforcers and not with the idea of holding people accountable.
Great piece, thank you.
Thanks for reading.