NAFPS Forum
Odds and Ends => Etcetera => Topic started by: AnnOminous on August 26, 2015, 08:13:42 pm
-
***This post has nothing to do with the subject of Roy Barnes. It is a continuation of a discussion based on comments by other members that I am disputing. This topic likely warrants a thread of its own, at Admin discretion.***
remember you are not native unless you know your family
I'm not going to read this thread and so maybe I'm missing some context. But this statement is appalling.
How can you claim such a thing given the '60s scoop and residential schools?
Maybe this statement is true for you as an individual person, earthw7, but you cannot and must not speak for other people, nations, bands, and countries. Claim your own truth (even if it is bigoted and ignorant) but Do Not speak like an authority figure for others. To make sweeping statements like this is inexcusable.
Earth and I are not of the same tribe, but my people believe the same. As does everyone I know. Now, the "scoop" took place long before the 60's. The stolen children are always welcomed home again. "Residential schools "? That didn't break who your family is. I was sent to Indian boarding school, and I know who my family is, I know who my tribe is. Earth's statement was far from "bigoted" or "arrogant "
You should not come here and tell others how to speak, not when those people are enrolled members of their tribe and this board is for Indian people to discuss frauds.
I don’t care how many people you know agree with you. I’ve heard many frauds say the same thing, so that statement holds no weight. What I care about is how a lack of education and information can be used to discriminate against others and subject them to a place of cultural inferiority. There are over 1200 distinct First Nations in North America (over 600 in Canada, and over 500 in the US). You would be very wrong to assume that what you think you know is verifiable truth, or that your cultural teachings generalize across other Nations. So Do Not Shush Me. Instead please take the time to read and gather some insight which may help to inform and evolve your opinion. Intersectionality of FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit) women’s equality interests, for example, is a crucial part of an informed opinion regarding cultural identity.
Often I read comments here that are based on a firmly held but ill-informed opinion rather than fact (ie verifiable truth); these opinions come across as “I’m a better Indian than you so stfu.” Typically that opinion reflects US laws, governance, and personal experience. A recent example: “This board is for Indian people to discuss frauds.” No it isn’t. There are many non-Native people who are doing exemplary research here. This board wouldn’t exist without their assistance, expertise and input and I’m grateful for them. As for the word “Indian,” this is a derogatory and offensive word for Canadian FNMI people because we know our history and know we did not come from India. The Canadian government continues its attempts to lump FNMI people together as ‘Indians’ although the word itself is being phased out (for example, the Department of Indian Affairs has been re-named Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada). A partial explanation can be found here: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014642/1100100014643
There are vast differences that separate the experience of Native Americans in the US and FNMI people in Canada. If people are unfamiliar with Canadian First Nations experience and history, educate yourselves rather than deny, subjugate, or dismiss. For example, the Sixties Scoop was a real and highly traumatic Canadian experience for over 20,000 FNMI people. The people who managed to survive are no less Aboriginal than a card-carrying status member of a particular Nation.
The term Sixties Scoop (or Canada Scoops), refers to the Canadian practice, beginning in the 1960s and continuing until the late 1980s, of taking ("scooping up") children of Aboriginal peoples in Canada from their families for placing in foster homes or adoption. The children were typically sent to Canada's Indian residential schools,[1] though a few were placed in the United States or western Europe.[2] The term "Sixties scoop" was coined by Patrick Johnston in his 1983 report Native Children and the Child Welfare System.[3][4] It is a variation of the broader term Baby Scoop Era to refer to the period from the late 1950s to 1980s when large numbers of children were taken from their parents for adoption.
An estimated 20,000 aboriginal children were taken from their families and fostered or adopted out to primarily white middle-class families, some within Canada and some in the US or Western Europe.[5][6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop)
An important part of Canadian history and governance which disenfranchised many FNMI people was/is the Indian Act, amended by Bill C-31 and Bill-C-3. The exclusion of Native people due to sex discrimination is a part of our history. For instance, an Aboriginal woman who married a non-Aboriginal man lost her “Indian” status as did her children, even if she later divorced him and returned to her reserve. On the other hand, a non-Native woman who married an Aboriginal man received treaty status.
Amendments to the Indian Act in 1951 established a centralized register of all people registered under the Act.(4) Section 11 of the Act designated those people entitled to be registered, and section 12 those people not entitled. “Status” or “registered” Indians were also generally band members, with rights under the Indian Act to live on reserve, vote for band council and chief, share in band moneys, and own and inherit property on reserve.
Section 12(1)(b) provided that a women who married a non-Indian was not entitled to be registered. In contrast, section 11(1)(f) stated that the wife or widow of any registered Indian man was entitled to status. Pursuant to section 109(1), if a male status Indian was enfranchised, his wife and children would also be enfranchised. Section 12(1)(a)(iv), known as the “double mother” clause, provided that a person whose parents married on or after 4 September 1951 and whose mother and paternal grandmother had not been recognized as Indians before their marriages, could be registered at birth, but would lose status and band membership on his or her 21st birthday.
The provisions that excluded women from legal Indian status and from residence on reserves prompted criticism from Indian women, and by the 1960s and 1970s, women’s groups had been organized in opposition to section 12(1)(b) and other provisions that discriminated against women and their children.(5) Accompanying this campaign were legal challenges before the Supreme Court of Canada and the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations. In 1973, the issue of whether section 12(1)(b) violated the Canadian Bill of Rights came before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Lavell case.(6) While the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the section did violate the right of an Indian woman as an individual to equality before the law, a decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973 reversed the Federal Court of Appeal’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that section 12(1)(b) was not rendered inoperative by the Canadian Bill of Rights. (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/bp410-e.htm)
McIvor v Canada introduced legislation that would begin to right the wrongs of sex discrimination and gender inequality for FNMI women in Canada.
Fighting for Disenfranchised First Nations Women
BY
SHARON MCIVOR
MAY 20, 2010
The following is a letter to Canada’s parliamentarians from Lower Nicola Band member Sharon McIvor, who has fought for the rights of aboriginal women for 20 years. She wants MPs to vote against the upcoming Bill C-3, Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act.
Below she explains her opposition to the bill, even though it would benefit members of her own family, and describes the history of a movement amongst First Nations women now half a century old.
May 18, 2010
Dear Members of Parliament,
My name is Sharon McIvor. I am a Thompson Indian and a member of the Lower Nicola Band. I am the plaintiff in McIvor v. Canada, the section 15 constitutional challenge to the status registration provisions of the Indian Act. I am writing today to ask you to vote against Bill C-3,Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act.
According to the Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Bill C-3 will make about 45,000 people newly eligible for registration as Indians. But Bill C-3 will not end the sex discrimination in the status registration provisions of theIndian Act.
In 1989, I decided to challenge the sex discrimination in the registration provisions because, as a woman, I was not treated equally as a transmitter of status, and, as a result, my own children and grandchildren were ineligible for registered status. I also decided to challenge the sex discrimination because I was not unique. Many thousands of other Aboriginal women and their descendants are denied Indian status because of sex discrimination.
Since I began my constitutional challenge, the support has been overwhelming. It has come from every corner: from individual Aboriginal women and their children and grandchildren who have personally thanked me for fighting for them, from national and local Aboriginal organizations, from Bands, from many women's organizations, from unions, and from church groups. Organizations and individuals have raised money to help me, held events to educate themselves and others about the continuing discrimination, and passed resolutions in their organizations to support me.
Now women from Wendake, Quebec, are on a 500-kilometre march to support the complete removal of sex discrimination from the registration provisions of the Indian Act. So far, they have the support of the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, the Fédération des Femmes du Québec, and Amnesty International (section canadienne-francophone). By the time they reach Ottawa, they are likely to have gathered more support.
Many people in Canada, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, know that this is a struggle for justice and that the discrimination against Aboriginal women and their descendants should end.
But Bill C-3 does not end it. Like 1985 legislation -- Bill C-31, Bill C-3 will provide a remedy for some Aboriginal women and their descendants, but continue the discrimination against many more. Bill C-3 will still exclude: 1) grandchildren born prior to September 4, 1951 who are descendants of a status woman who married out; 2) descendants of Indian women who co-parented in common law unions with non-status men; and 3) the illegitimate female children of male Indians. These Aboriginal women and their descendants are only ineligible for registration as Indians because of the entrenched discrimination in the Indian Act, which has been fiercely held onto by Canada, despite years of protest and repeated, damning criticisms by United Nations treaty bodies.
Bill C-3 will not even confer equal registration status on those who will be newly eligible. The grandchildren of Indian women who married out will only receive section 6(2) status, and never section 6(1) status. So even those who will be newly entitled to status under Bill C-3 will be treated in a discriminatory way because their Aboriginal ancestor was a woman, not a man. The "second generation cut-off" will apply to the female line descendants a generation earlier than it does to their male line counterparts.
Bill C-3 would benefit my own son and grandchildren. Nonetheless, I ask you to defeat Bill C-3 if it comes to a vote in the House of Commons. It is time for Canada to stop discriminating against Aboriginal women as transmitters of status. The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Chuck Strahl, should replace Bill C-3 with legislation that will do this, finally and completely.
My own struggle has taken 20 years. Before me, Mary Two-Axe Early, Jeanette Corbière Lavell, Yvonne Bedard, and Sandra Lovelace all fought to end sex discrimination against Aboriginal women in the status registration provisions in the Indian Act. It has been about 50 years now. Surely this is long enough.
Please stand for justice and equality for Aboriginal women and their descendants.
Sincerely,
Sharon McIvor
(http://rabble.ca/news/2010/05/fighting-disenfranchised-first-nations-women)
Dr Pam Palmeter has done much to further the rights of Aboriginal women in Canada, and some of her work and links to important documents may be found here: http://nonstatusindian.blogspot.ca/2011/02/frequently-asked-questions-about-bill-c.html
There are numerous other reasons why disenfranchisement of FNMI peoples occurred in Canada, including imprisonment, land trades, the pursuit of secondary education, and moving to urban centres. Despite various government initiatives to “kill the Indian in the child” it hasn’t worked. To reiterate my sentiments in an earlier post, it is an inexcusable act of discrimination to claim that only native people who know their families somehow qualify as being native. Before I posted my hasty earlier response, I read a newspaper article about a landlord in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan who was refusing tenancy to Native people. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/no-natives-please-kijiji-pulls-apartment-ad-for-prince-albert-sask-after-complaint-1.3202505) I doubt that this landlord was planning to ask potential tenants to show their status or treaty card, or to ask if they knew who their families were. Rather, they would be rejected based upon their appearances, last names, accents, or whatever convenient excuse the landlord had. That’s how discrimination continues: through overt and covert generalizations, stereotypes, assumptions, and opinions. We need to be better than this.
There are frauds, liars, cheaters, charlatans, quacks, and all sorts of conniving ne’er-do-wells who get off on cultural theft and appropriation. NAFPS has done a great job of revealing some of these miscreants, and as a contributing member for many years I’m happy to have played a very small part in this. But I offer a caution to all that we do not engage in further disenfranchisement of legitimate FNMI and Native American people through hasty judgements and dangerous generalizations. Neither should we distance ourselves from non-Aboriginal friends and allies who are committed to the cause of NAFPS.
Please read this piece to better understand some of the complexities of FNMI identity in Canada: http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/identity/aboriginal-identity-terminology.html
Further reading:
First Nations Women, Governance and the Indian Act: A Collection of Policy Research Reports: http://fngovernance.org/resources_docs/First_Nation_Women__Governance.pdf
Quick Facts: Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act:
https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032508/1100100032509
Indian Status and Band Membership Issues:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/bp410-e.htm
First Nations, Metis and Inuit Women:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11442-eng.htm#a3
-
Thank you for suggesting this thread. There are way too many misconception and inaccurate generalizations about FNMI on this forum.
-
Thank you for this. I've lots to learn.
-
I appreciate your thoughtful consideration with regard to this very important issue.
-
It's extremely important and I hope forum members take the time to read the information you've compiled. Again, thank you so much <3
I appreciate your thoughtful consideration with regard to this very important issue.
-
I know deliberately-warped histories make things blurry regarding these issues (like AnnOminous is clearly demonstrating) for many people, myself included, and since we always go with what we last know as the truth, there's so much to be corrected through education. It isn't just the unofficial beliefs of tribes about individuals denied their birthright, but entire groups of Indigenous peoples in the Americas who've been dismissed as cultural entities. How many people do I know who rail against "the man" for atrocities against Natives will (for example) easily dismiss those over the border as simply "Mexicans" and thus exclude them from their protests? Refraining from commenting on topics and issues one has little knowledge of and not using a colonial attitude is something I work on in an effort to be a better contributor to discussions like these. NAFPS has, for myself, been a supreme lesson for in constraint as to broadcasting personal values and beliefs that marginalize others. I am also being educated here as a person, despite my snark sometimes trying to derail me.
-
Refraining from commenting on topics and issues one has little knowledge of and not using a colonial attitude is something I work on in an effort to be a better contributor to discussions like these.
This is a very useful guideline for me also, thank you.
-
Many of the histories that is explained about Canada is the same for the United States, and many of our adopted foster and boarding school people came home to find their families like me. Many have been posted but today we find that many can search their families and we welcome back our people but we also have fraud who use this history against us. If you claiming to be a shaman ??? you better tells who you family are! You don't become a SHAMAN in america of course you don't become a spiritual leader with out family and people. I stand by what i say if you claim to be a medicine man, spiritual leaders, sundance leader, shaman you better know you family.
-
One of the things i see is these frauds claims; i was adopted and now he is shaman? Or that i was taken from my family now i am Shaman, Our history as native people is one of horror and tragedy but there are rules we have followed for thousand of years, I will not change my statement if you don't know your family you are not native, this is referring to those who claim to be shaman or the abuser of our culture. I understand boarding school both me and my husband were boarding school people along with my mother and grandmother. I help my people everyday fund their roots, but people who have been losted in this system don't become shamans, i know my history and my relatives in Canada and no matter what you can not be a medicine person with knowing your famliy and being taught for a life time.
-
earth, Ann explained in the first post on this that this isn't about the Roy Barnes thread. We all agree(d) that people raised away from their tribal communities are extremely extremely extremely unlikely to be made medicine people when they return as adults or through adoption. This is another issue entirely, one many of us easily dismiss with our current attitudes based on the misconceptions highlighted here.
-
Many of the histories that is explained about Canada is the same for the United States, and many of our adopted foster and boarding school people came home to find their families like me. Many have been posted but today we find that many can search their families and we welcome back our people but we also have fraud who use this history against us. If you claiming to be a shaman ??? you better tells who you family are! You don't become a SHAMAN in america of course you don't become a spiritual leader with out family and people. I stand by what i say if you claim to be a medicine man, spiritual leaders, sundance leader, shaman you better know you family.
One of the things i see is these frauds claims; i was adopted and now he is shaman? Or that i was taken from my family now i am Shaman, Our history as native people is one of horror and tragedy but there are rules we have followed for thousand of years, I will not change my statement if you don't know your family you are not native, this is referring to those who claim to be shaman or the abuser of our culture. I understand boarding school both me and my husband were boarding school people along with my mother and grandmother. I help my people everyday fund their roots, but people who have been losted in this system don't become shamans, i know my history and my relatives in Canada and no matter what you can not be a medicine person with knowing your famliy and being taught for a life time.
Thank-you for sharing your opinions, generalizations, and experience. Your voice is as important as anyone else’s here and I agree with some of what you are saying. I’m not sure if you read the entirety of my previous post, or took the time to reflect on what I wrote and the facts I shared. If you haven’t had the time to do that yet, I encourage you to do so.
I didn’t ever refer to medicine people or shamans. In fact, when I hear someone say they are a shaman or that they are studying to become a shaman, I just laugh. Why? Because it’s laughable don’t you think? They are welcome to their delusions in the same way we are each welcome to our own opinions. Delusions and opinions are not facts. When those delusions and opinions hurt, abuse, and exploit others, we speak up. We try to change things.
I understand that you are a proud Lakota woman, and that you are proud of your contributions to your People and Land. It’s good that you speak up for them as you carry a lot of wisdom and knowledge about Your People.
The problem is when you make assumptions about other People and Lands. The Lakota (and LDN people as a whole) are a small but vital part of “Indian Country” and much exploitation has occurred. In Canada, we are somewhat lucky I suppose because invasion and colonization of our Lands and People came much later than for your people, at least in the West. Many Ceremonies and artifacts were kept by the People, for the People, and in some instances the signing of both Treaty 7 and Treaty 6 were “helpful” in this, despite being disastrous in many other ways.
I speak of Treaty 7 because I live on Treaty 7 land in Southern Alberta Canada. I don’t speak for all Treaty 7 people obviously; I think that speaking for others is both rude and disrespectful. Treaty 7 Territory is comprised of 3 distinct Blackfoot First Nations (Siksika, Kainai, Northern Peigan), one distinct Nakoda First Nation (Stoney--comprised of 3 bands: Bearspaw, Chiniki and Wesley/Goodstoney), and the Tsuu T’ina First Nation (which is Dene). Treaty 6 lands are in Northern Alberta, and parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. There are more than 50 distinct nations represented by the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations, including Plains Cree, Woodland Cree, and Assiniboine, but I will list them all here for your information:
Alberta
• Alexander First Nation
• Alexis First Nation
• Beaver Lake Cree Nation
• Cold Lake First Nation
• Enoch Cree Nation
• Ermineskin Tribe
• Frog Lake First Nation
• Heart Lake First Nation
• Kehewin Cree Nation
• Louis Bull First Nation
• Michel First Nation
• Montana First Nation
• O'Chiese First Nation
• Paul First Nation
• Saddle Lake Cree Nation
• Samson First Nation
• Sunchild First Nation
• Saddle Lake Cree Nation
Manitoba
• Marcel Colomb First Nation
• Mathias Colomb First Nation
Saskatchewan
• Ahtahkakoop First Nation
• Beardy's and Okemasis First Nation
• Big Island Lake Cree Nation
• Big River First Nation
• Chakastaypasin First Nation
• Flying Dust First Nation
• Island Lake First Nation
• James Smith First Nation
• Lac La Ronge First Nation
• Little Pine First Nation
• Lucky Man First Nation
• Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation
• Mistawasis First Nation
• Montreal Lake Cree Nation
• Moosomin First Nation
• Mosquito-Grizzly Bear's Head-Lean Man
• Muskeg Lake Cree Nation
• Muskoday First Nation
• One Arrow First Nation
• Onion Lake Cree Nation
• Pelican Lake First Nation
• Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation
• Poundmaker Cree Nation
• Red Pheasant First Nation
• Whitefish Lake First Nation
• Saulteaux First Nation
• Sweetgrass First Nation
• Sturgeon Lake First Nation
• Thunderchild First Nation
• Waterhen Lake First Nation
• Witchekan Lake First Nation
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_6)
My point is that there are many Nations, many voices, many experiences, many opinions, and many facts. I prefer to share facts when I am referring to anything other than my own personal realizations and experiences. To generalize one’s own cultural teachings to other people and nations is disrespectful.
Where I live, things are different than where you live. Your generalizations sometimes make me feel both sad and angry. From previous communications, for example, I know that you hold Arvol Looking Horse in high regard. Sometimes it seems like you have the mistaken belief that Mr Looking Horse is like a Pope for all spiritual and cultural matters for all FNMI people across the US and Canada (ps there is no "America"). This is simply not true, and is in fact degrading, dismissive, and disrespectful. A quick google check on Mr Looking Horse shows that there are some LDN people who have charged him with fraud, but that’s none of my business or concern. I don’t see his name on these pages, but that may be because many traditional people do not use the internet to reveal fraudulent people and behaviours. Or it may mean that he is innocent. I don’t know Mr Looking Horse personally, and I have little doubt that he is a kind person, but he has absolutely no authority over other people and nations.
Which brings me to this recent post of yours:
all non-natives can not have a pipes and can not dance in a sun dance according to the Keeper of the pipe
I recognize this opinion from the numerous other times you have shared it. I’m familiar with the Declaration of War Against Lakota Spirituality and other similar documents that strongly suggest the same. However, if in fact Mr Looking Horse and the claim that he is the 19th generation Keeper of a Pipe is true, and that those claiming he is a fraud because he is unwilling or unable to produce evidence of this are wrong, it in no way affects me and others living on Treaty 7 Territory or anywhere else. If other First Nations reward Pipes, Head Dresses, or opportunities of both privilege and honour to non-Native people, that is up to those Leaders of those Nations to do so. It is no business of Mr Looking Horse, or you—although you are still free to have an opinion about that.
There is an old cliché: “Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.” When opinion is disguised as fact, we all lose. People get false information which leads to false assumptions, NAFPS is downgraded into another hotspot for gossip and defamation, good people avoid contributing their own knowledge and wisdom to this forum and leave, and the frauds and hucksters gain free reign to further exploit and abuse. A simple solution is to be clear when we are stating an opinion, a generalization, or a teaching that is culturally specific.
You write: “there are rules we have followed for thousand of years .” I think Respect is one of those rules.
-
I agree there are no shaman and it is laughable ;D, but i was using this word as to whom i was talking about the frauds and to those claims this crazy title. i am not debating native people but those non natives who steal our culture. i do object to white people doing ceremonies but that is just me, i object to white people making up ceremonies, changing the way and language, most of all to making people pay to pray, those who take good people who are sick and fool them in to thinking they can be cured, only hurting them more.
i make no assumptions i understand the difference of the other nations i will be the first to say i know nothing of other native cultures but my own, i speak from a Lakota/Dakota ego only, as i say to people native people love their own people so much they tend to think from their own culture first. So forgive me if you thought i spoke about the cree i know nothing of them other than my husband has some cree blood,
I don't need evidence of our pipe i have been to visit the pipe at green grass many times and also know the histories of the keepers, and Arvol just lives down the way from us, i am not here to defend Arvol he can do that himself, but the declaration was made by many of our people and i was honored to be a part of the meetings,
Its just in indian country in general when we gather the first thing people ask is which nations you are from, who are your parents and who are your grandparents, that is how we connect. of course we have many who are trying to find their way home i have one living with me now so he can connect back with his people. So no worry there is no argument just different nations.
-
I think that Keely said this "Earth and I are not of the same tribe, but my people believe the same. As does everyone I know. Now, the "scoop" took place long before the 60's. The stolen children are always welcomed home again. "Residential schools "? That didn't break who your family is. I was sent to Indian boarding school, and I know who my family is, I know who my tribe is. Earth's statement was far from "bigoted" or "arrogant "
You should not come here and tell others how to speak, not when those people are enrolled members of their tribe and this board is for Indian people to discuss frauds."
Keely I do not know you. I am addressing you specifically and also the board. Sorry if it comes off as jumbled I am writing while I think. I am from this mythical place called Canada which occupies the lands of many indian people to the north of you. I get the OP doesnt like the word indian but some of us use the work because we have aright to use it and can reclaim it. Kelly not only do I come from a mythical place called Canada but I am from a mythical nation called the Algonquin. This board for the most part forgets that you have relations to the north and I do not know what is up with the Algonquin deniers. Keely you need to do some learning before you pretty much call somebody a liar. The 60s scoop happened and it happened in the 60s. Also a bit before and a bit after but the 60s was the worst. The scoop is happening again now when our kids are being taken away and put in to foster care for no good reason. For you to brush off the scoop and call the OP a liar and to act like they are not an indian person because they are from Canada is really wrong. We have status like you have enrollment but even still things are so different in the US.Both sides of the so called border has had to deal with terrible things from the occupying government and youd think we could work together instad of having relatives from the north being treated like they are ignorant. You might want to ask yourself why your northern relatives who come here to participate do not stay. There are two other Algonguin People who have posted here and I have not seen them come back. How do you think it feels to have other indian people say that your Nation doesnt exist. That our creation stories, ceremonies, traditions, ancestors and relatives dont exist. It does not feel good one bit. It comes across as hurtful and mean. There is something off about that invisable border. When I'm at home I feel good about myself and my world as indian. If I make it through border crossing I feel like I am on an alien planet most of the time when I come acroos other indian people until I hit the north west coast. I have to be here in the US for work more than I want to and it is not so welcoming.
-
For those looking for the thread where this conversation started, before it was split off into it's own thread here:
Roy Barnes: http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=3934
-
I guess for me I do understanding boarding school and being taken away from my family, I was in boarding school along with my husband
his family comes from Canada, he is Metis, Cree and Chippewa he speaks his language, we went to Canada for ceremonies for years and still have family there, that come down for ceremonies in the states. I don't see where the problem came from, we were talking about frauds and those who makes claims to be shamans or medicine men, when it comes to frauds they are in most cases not related to the tribes or have some great great great great grandma who might be Indian. I use the term Indian because that is what is used by many of these people who make fraud claims. Where this post thought we were discussing Native people as determining who they are it was not in my world view nor my understanding. In the United States they started the forced removal of the children in 1819 The Civilization Act of 1819, everyone who is native had their children taken away it was not until 1984 that Native could raise their children with out fear of them being taken, so our legacy is one of pain, and loss,
So as we discuss the issues it still goes back to those who are not Native who make claims to fraud our people. This site is about Frauds and those who cause damage to our people. yes each of our nation don't know all the difference about all the tribes in this world, but that is where we can learn, but back to this site it is about frauds and people who make claims that are not true,
-
Kwey to your husband from me earthw7.
Icant speak for AnnOminous and I wont try to. coming in later than the exchange in this thread and reading other threads I can give you my perspective and that is that indians from Canada who come to post here mostly dont stay long. There is a feeling that we are somehow less indian or something like that. Sometimes people reach their limit and they need to address that issue. I know it was off topic and it was posted in a different place and I answered both places. Some really mean things were said to AnnOminous by Keely and I wanted to stick up for my neighbour. Being from Canada and having status is no less than being from the US and being enrolled.
I know what this forum is for and I will try to help but if a person is going to belittle another FN person I will speak up. I dont mean the fakes I mean people like AnnOminous.
-
I want to thank our FNMI members and friends for helping us understand. I appreciate it. :)
-
If folks are still interested in learning more about FNMI peoples and identity, and how complicated it can be, this is worth the read.
http://apihtawikosisan.com/2011/12/got-status-indian-status-in-canada-sort-of-explained/
Got Status? Indian Status in Canada, sort of explained.
by âpihtawikosisân — 246 comments
It has been my experience that many Canadians do not understand the difference between Status and membership, or why so many different terms are used to refer to native peoples. The confusion is understandable; this is a complex issue and the terms used in any given context can vary greatly. Many people agree that the term ‘Indian’ is a somewhat outdated and inappropriate descriptor and have adopted the presently more common ‘First Nations’. It can seem strange then when the term ‘Indian’ continues to be used, in particular by the government, or in media publications. The fact that ‘Indian’ is a legislative term is not often explained.
As a Métis, I find myself often answering questions about whether or not I have Status, which invariably turns into an explanation about what Status means in the Canadian context. The nice thing is, as time passes, fewer people ask me this because it does seem that the information is slowly getting out there into the Canadian consciousness.
To help that process along, I figured I’d give you the quick and dirty explanation of the different categories out there. Well…quick is subjective, I am after all notoriously long-winded.
Terms discussed:
native
indigenous
Aboriginal
Status Indian
non-Status Indian
Métis
Inuit
First Nations
Bill C-31 Indians
Bill C-3 Indians
Band membership
Treaty Indians
Context first
Obviously I want to focus specifically on the Canadian context. Since I’m trying to clarify the terms used, for this post I’m going to avoid using them interchangeably even though I tend to do this elsewhere.
When speaking generally, I will use the term native because it tends not to have any legal meaning and it’s just a term I’m used to using. When referring to specific legal definitions, I will use the legislated terms.
This discussion focuses mainly on Status, and does not delve into definitions of Inuit or Métis, nor is there much explanation about what being non-Status means. Those are also huge issues that require separate posts.
Status versus Membership
Status is a legal definition, used to refer to native peoples who are under federal jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction over, “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” was set up in our first Constitution, the Constitution Act, 1867, in section 91(24). This division of powers is not a little detail, so I’d like you to keep it mind always in these discussions.
The particular piece of federal legislation that defines Status is the Indian Act, which was created in 1876 and has been updated many times since then. Status then can be held only by those native peoples who fit the definition laid out in the Indian Act.
Membership is a much more complex issue. It can refer to a set of rules (traditional or not) created by a native community, that define who is a member of that community. It can also refer to those who are considered members of certain regional or national native organisations. It can be used in a much less formal and subjective sense, such as being part of an urban or rural native group.
Obviously these definitions will overlap at times. The most important thing to note is that having membership is not the same as having status. For example, I am a member of the Alberta Métis Nation. I am not a Status Indian.
Who is Aboriginal?
The term Aboriginal came into legal existence in 1982 when it was defined in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 35(2) defines Aboriginals as including “the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada”. It is a general, catch all term that has gained legal status in Canada, and therefore is particular to the Canadian context.
The term ‘indigenous’ is another such catch all descriptor, but does not have the same national legal connotations. It is widely used internationally, however. I am linking now to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to give you a sense of how it is used.
The Constitution Act, 1982 does not define ‘Indian’, ‘Inuit’ or ‘Métis’. The definitions have been fleshed out in legislation, in court decisions, and in policy manuals and have changed significantly over the years. Thus you will see these terms used in different ways depending on how old your sources is, or what period of time is being discussed and so on. Confused? Oh don’t worry, you’re not alone!
Being Aboriginal does not mean one has legal Status; Status is held only by Indians as defined in the Indian Act.
Status
Status Indians are persons who, under the Indian Act are registered or are entitled to be registered as Indians. All registered Indians have their names on the Indian roll, which is administered by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). (I still call this Ministry INAC (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) or DIAND (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) which are both names I grew up hearing.)
Status Indians are able to access certain programs and services which are not available to other Aboriginal peoples.
Does this seem like a vague definition? It isn’t. It is incredibly detailed and confusing. The definitions have changed many times over the years. If you want to read more on this issue, this page gives a great overview of pre and post 1867 definitions as well as explaining some of the more shocking aspects of the Indian Act over time.
Bill C-31 and Status
There were various federal policies over the years that caused Status Indians to be removed from the Indian roll. Some lost Status when they earned a university degree, joined the Army or the priesthood, gained fee simple title of land, or married a non-Indian (this last one applied only to women). One minute you were legally an Indian, and the next…you weren’t.
Bill C-31 was passed in 1985 as an amendment to the Indian Act, and was intended to reinstate Status for those who had lost it. In particular the Bill was supposed to reverse sexual discrimination that had cause Indian women who married non-Indians to lose their Status while men who married non-Indian woman not only kept their Status, but also passed Status on to their non-Indian wives.
Bill C-31 added new categories to the Indian Act, defining who is a Status Indian, and who will be a Status Indian in the future. The legislation does not specifically refer to any sort of blood quantum, therefore there is no official policy that would take into account half or quarter Indian ancestry. Nonetheless, ancestry continues to be a determining factor in who is a Status Indian.
Section 6 of the Indian Act identifies two categories of Status Indians, called 6(1) and 6(2) Indians. Both categories provide full Status; there is no such thing as half Status. The categories determine whether the children of a Status Indian will have Status or not.
This might be a good time to get a coffee, because this next bit is always confusing for people.
A 6(1) Indian who marries a 6(1) or a 6(2) Indian will have 6(1) children. Everyone in this ‘equation’ is a full Status Indian themselves.
If two 6(2) Indians marry, they will have children with 6(1) Status.
A 6(1) Indian who marries anyone without Status (whether that person is Aboriginal or not) will have children who have 6(2) Status. A 6(2) Indian who marries anyone without Status (whether that person is Aboriginal or not) will have children with no legal Indian Status.
Look at this chart again. Two generations of ‘out-marriage’. That is all it takes to completely lose Status. It does not matter if you raise your grandchildren in your native culture. It does not matter if they speak your language and know your customs. If you married someone without Status, and your grandchildren have a non-Status parent, your grandchildren are not considered Indian any longer. Not legally.
To be honest, it is amazing there are any Status Indians left in this country.
Bill C-31, way to not fix sexism!
One of the most criticised aspects of Bill C-31 was that it did not actually reverse the sexism inherent in denying women Status if they married a non-Status man.
Women who had their Indian Status reinstated under Bill C-31 had 6(1) Status, but their children had 6(2) Status. That makes sense according to the charts above, right?
The problem is that men who married non-Indian women actually passed on Indian Status to their previously non-Status wives. Thus the children of those unions have 6(1) status.
Sharon McIvor, and Bill C-3: Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act
Sharon McIvor launched an epic court battle to address the problems with Bill C-31 and the Indian Act. In response a Bill was introduced to Parliament for First Reading in March of 2010. The full title of this Bill is:
An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs)
Bill C-3 was given Royal Assent on December 15, 2010 and came into force (became law) on January 31, 2011. A great many grandchildren of women who regained Status under Bill C-31 (but who passed on only 6(2) Status to their children) can now regain their 6(2) Status if they choose to.
In an unsurprising twist, this means my mother and her siblings are eligible for 6(2) Status. Many people are being faced with the same situation, and it is not an easy choice to make. Identity politics are incredibly convoluted and mined with danger. For others who have ‘lived’ Indian their whole lives, Status be damned, it can be an important change…but ultimately one that reinforces the so-called legitimacy of a colonial power deciding who is Indian and who is not.
By the way, ‘Bill C-3 Indians’ isn’t very catchy…I wonder if we’re going to start calling them ‘McIvor Indians’? (Say it out loud 😀 )
Band Membership
There are a number of sub-categories that apply to Status Indians. One category is Band membership.
A Band is defined as a group of Indians for whom land has been set aside (a Reserve), or who have been declared a Band by the Governor General (no Reserve). A Band might have a number of reserves, but can also have no land reserved at all. Think of a Band as the people themselves.
Before Bill C-31, having Indian Status automatically gave you Band membership. Bill C-31 gave Bands the ability to stay under the Indian Act Band membership rules (automatic membership with Status) or make their own rules regarding membership.
Thus you can have Status Indians who have no Band membership, just as you can have non-Status Indians who do have Band membership. Being a Status Indian is no longer a guarantee that you will be a member of a Band.
Bill C-3 Indians face the same problems as Bill C-31 Indians did. Having Status does not necessarily mean they will be able to live on reserve or get Band Membership. The pros and cons of this are hotly debated, so I’m going to back away slowly and not touch that, except to point out that there were and are no plans to make federal funding responsive to the influx of those with newly acquired Status under either Bill.
Reserves
Related to Band membership, another sub-category is between reserve and non-reserve Indians. This does not refer to whether one actually lives on the reserve or not, but rather describes whether an Indian is affiliated with a reserve. These are people who have access to a reserve and the right to live there if they choose.
Even though no historical Treaties were signed in British Columbia, there are many reserves, while in the Northwest Territories which is covered by a numbered Treaty, there are no reserves. I also pointed out above that you can have membership in a Band that doesn’t have a reserve at all.
As in other situations, being a Status Indian does not guarantee you access to a reserve, and there are non-Status people who live on reserve as well.
Treaty Indians
Another sub-category you should know about has to do with whether or not someone is a Treaty Indian.
Treaties in this context refer to formal agreements between legal Indians or their ancestors and the Federal government, usually involving land surrenders. The so called ‘numbered Treaties’ were signed between 1875 and 1921 and cover most of western and northern Canada. British Columbia, with the exception of Vancouver Island is not covered by any historical Treaty.
Other Treaties were signed in eastern Canada, but there are vast areas in the east that are still not covered by any Treaty. A number of modern (since 1976) Treaties have been signed in BC, and in other areas of the country, and negotiations are still underway to create more Treaties. Some Treaties provided for reserves and others did not.
There are many non-Status Indians, particularly in eastern Canada, who consider themselves Treaty Indians. In the Prairies, “Treaty Indian” is often used interchangeably with “Status Indian” although one is not always the same as the other.
Confused yet?
To sum up, Status is held only by Indians who are defined as such under the Indian Act. Inuit and Métis do not have Status, nor do non-Status Indians. There are many categories of Status Indians, but these are legal terms only, and tell us what specific rights a native person has under the legislation.
If a native person is not a Status Indian, this does not mean that he or she is not legally Aboriginal. More importantly, not having Status does not mean someone is not native. Native peoples will continue to exist and flourish whether or not we are recognised legally and you can bet on the fact that terms and definitions will continue to evolve.
-
Looking for a good place on this forum to post this article. It helps clarify who is Metis as well as how "metissage" is appropriating the indigenous identity. There are two authors to the article, one is Metis, the other is French Canadian, some of whose relatives are involved with the fraudulent Metis claims discussed elsewhere in this forum. He is speaking out against this: https://www.academia.edu/33742034/White_Settler_Revisionism_and_Making_M%C3%A9tis_Everywhere
-
Also, here is a link to a radio podcast (?), discussions with the authors of the above article. Good information here. Also, it is revealing that a major proposed legislation in Canada involving Algonquin people has people listed as eligable to vote on it - by virtue of their indigeniety; an "indigenous" identity based on the same fraudulent ancestral claims (even to the same "root ancestors") as the bogus East Coast Metis claims: http://www.mediaindigena.com/about