Author Topic: Roy Barnes  (Read 23899 times)

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1415
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2014, 12:37:48 pm »
it is unlikely that an individual who was adopted raised by white people and then comes back to be a medicine man.
as It is said here it takes a life time of training,
remember you are not native unless you know your family
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 02:12:33 pm by earthw7 »
In Spirit

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4785
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2014, 01:14:59 pm »
Commanda's name has come up several times before as supposedly sanctioning several questionable people as well as good and respected ones. That Commanda is an elder is beyond doubt, but the claims about him are not always clear. The numbers claiming him as their authority make me suspicious. The Sundance itself was not originally Micmaq and came to them recently.
https://www.nfb.ca/film/sacred_sundance
http://www.umanitoba.ca/outreach/cm/vol17/no7/thesacredsundance.html

Offline Smart Mule

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2014, 05:56:46 pm »
Grandfather William crossed over.  While he was alive he did not conduct sundance so I'm wondering how Roy became a sundance chief if Grandfather William was his teacher? 

eta - Also,twoturtles, could you tell me who Roy's L'Nuk family is?  Which community they are from?  Why he has to lead 'Lakota' sweats when the L'nu have their own ceremony?  If he was a respectable person wouldn't one of the leaders in the L'Nu community teach him?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 11:33:07 pm by sky »

Offline twoturtles

  • Posts: 5
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2015, 09:54:28 pm »
Hi Omgsrsly!
I don't know his L'Nu, better ask him directly through Facebook. His main teachers are Frank Seti (RIP), Maurice Little Wolf and Gladys Cook (RIP). He does run his sweats in Lakota for the record and as far as I know he respects the tradition and protocols. Grandfather Commanda sanctioned the Sun Dance on Algonquin territory, while making sure he had the support and blessings of the Elders from which he received the Bundle. I hope that makes the matter clearer...

Offline Smart Mule

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2015, 10:47:48 pm »
Hi 2turtles,

I really have no desire to engage with an individual who participates in anything Steve McFadden touches.

ogms

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1415
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2015, 01:47:43 pm »
ok now ??? how can an Algonquin ok a sun dance? What happen to their way of life why steal another culture?
This so called elder who be called in indian country because is not how you do things. What do you know of my culture and language for all i know you guys are saying AHO my pet peeve this kiowa word has spread across the new ager world. Are you an expert on my Lakota way life? So 2turtles i bet you are not enrolled into a tribe another white guy who was damaged in life has been taken in by a fraud.
In Spirit

Offline AClockworkWhite

  • Posts: 194
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2015, 05:37:06 pm »
it is unlikely that an individual who was adopted raised by white people and then comes back to be a medicine man.
as It is said here it takes a life time of training,
remember you are not native unless you know your family
THIS is absolutely true. Especially the part about making a person who did not grow up in the community nor speak the language into a medicine person. I'm smelling a fraud defending a fraud here.
I came here for the popcorn and stayed for the slaying of pretenders.

Offline AnnOminous

  • Posts: 100
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2015, 06:41:36 pm »
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.

Offline Keely

  • Posts: 103
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2015, 07:31:20 am »
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?
I
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.

Offline Bears Ghost

  • Posts: 15
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2015, 07:55:40 am »
How can you learn your culture or medicine ways if you don't know your family or tribe's medicine people?  It's our families who tell us who the trusted medicine/holy people in the community are. You are only a leader if someone follows you, only a medicine person if your people trust you and the medicine you carry. I myself am a Pabaksa Dakotah, and what Earth says is absolutely true throughout ndn country among the many tribes my friends and family are from. Bigotry and ignorance are the reason we tell people that you need to know who your family and tribe are. Otherwise, you're just telling a story that you heard in your family or made up yourself to feel connected to something bigger than the person you are. Cherokee/ndn gr-gr-gr-gr-great grandparents story is long worn out. Prove your story with truth or stop telling it. Simple.

Offline Smart Mule

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2015, 06:03:42 pm »
I'm reposting AnnOminous's words here for the sake of continuity. It can also be found here- http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=4720.0 as it's own thread.

***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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1415
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2015, 03:47:05 am »
so someone is doing a Lakota sweat and sun dance but lactose can't say anything???
In Spirit

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1415
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #27 on: August 31, 2015, 02:25:53 pm »
it is unlikely that an individual who was adopted raised by white people and then comes back to be a medicine man.
as It is said here it takes a life time of training,
remember you are not native unless you know your family

I will repeat You are not Native unless you know your family-this relates to those who claim to be medicine men-shamans-holy people-born again-because it take a life time of training among the people. We as Lakota/Dakota people, We trace the families who have these gifts, just like we keep the genealogy of our keepers because so many want to make false accusing of who is the keeper but we have it all recorded.
In Spirit

Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2015, 03:32:58 pm »
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?
I
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.

It took me a while to find this thread. The search function here works strangly. I am not posting about Roy Barnes who I know is a fake. So now Keely I can address you directly. Everyone you know does not include everyone. The scoop took place most in the 1960s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop as you can see. Stolen children are welcomed home and I don't know personaly of any scoop kids becomeing medicine people but they have after they reconect been able to tend fire, run lodges, and conduct other kinds of ceremony. In the north anyway. Maybe not where you live but yes here in the North. Residential schools broke people and that broke families and even communities. I am glad your experience in residental school was not as traumatic as it has been for the most. A lot of times when people would age out of the schools they did not go back home because they got so damaged at those schools. There are some people who are elderly now and are finally going back to their communitys and they do not know their familys or their communities. They lost a lifetime because of those schools so do not minimize the damage they did. I saw and see a lot of arrogance and biggotry not only in this thread but on this site toward your relatives in the North. You might not see it but maybe that is because it is not being directed to your community at large or in my case toward my Nation. Why is it okay for you to come here and tell others how to speak and minimize status over enrollment but an FN person cannot come here and explain how things may be different in the North?

Re: Roy Barnes
« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2015, 04:11:58 pm »
Crowshane by the way is a Sagkeeng FN not Sageen. I dont know what or where Sageen is and if Barnes really did assist which I do not believe he should learn who the People are. Day Rider is from Káínawa or Blood Reserve. They have 5 sundances between July and August. I dont attend so I dont know if Day Riders is legit or not. But I know that they are pretty open about other people dancing and you and I may not agree with that but it is their choice as a People. So dont decide for them please. You arent them and they arent you. Internal opression is just as bad as external opression.