Author Topic: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)  (Read 13812 times)

Offline AnnOminous

  • Posts: 100
***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 Smart Mule

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2015, 01:37:30 pm »
Thank you for suggesting this thread. There are way too many misconception and inaccurate generalizations about FNMI on this forum.

Epiphany

  • Guest
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2015, 03:16:22 pm »
Thank you for this. I've lots to learn.

Offline AnnOminous

  • Posts: 100
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2015, 05:13:30 pm »
I appreciate your thoughtful consideration with regard to this very important issue.

Offline Smart Mule

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2015, 05:15:26 pm »
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.

Offline AClockworkWhite

  • Posts: 194
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2015, 05:38:33 pm »
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.
I came here for the popcorn and stayed for the slaying of pretenders.

Epiphany

  • Guest
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2015, 06:41:44 pm »
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.

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1415
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2015, 01:14:44 pm »
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.
In Spirit

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1415
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2015, 02:36:57 pm »
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.
In Spirit

Offline AClockworkWhite

  • Posts: 194
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2015, 03:56:45 pm »
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.
I came here for the popcorn and stayed for the slaying of pretenders.

Offline AnnOminous

  • Posts: 100
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2015, 08:43:41 pm »
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:
 
Quote
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.

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1415
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2015, 03:41:35 am »
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.
In Spirit

Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2015, 01:10:50 am »
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.

Offline Defend the Sacred

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3498
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2015, 05:22:30 pm »
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

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1415
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: Clarifiying misconceptions regarding FNMI (First Nations, Metis, Inuit)
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2015, 08:18:27 pm »
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,
In Spirit