25 Comments
Feb 22, 2021Liked by Anne Helen Petersen

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
founding

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

I liked this. Thank you!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Great piece, thank you.

Expand full comment