Author Topic: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"  (Read 36886 times)

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2009, 08:08:35 pm »
What?  I don't think anyone has said here that if an Indian somehow gets "kicked out" (?) of his or her nation, that person suddenly, magically becomes "not an Indian anymore."  What I read was

"If the Nation you claim to be from doesn't claim you, you're not Indian."

"...and never were" is what's implied here, not that anyone can kick you out of the club and take your Indianness away. And what of it?  If you didn't grow up in a Native culture and you have little Indian blood, you're not an Indian.  That's not "whitey talk," it's what Native Americans have told me since I took an interest in the misuse of Native spirituality.  If I say "I had a black great-grandfather, and that means I'm an African-American" and the local African-American community says, "The heck you are, suburban white chick--and by the way, who are you?"--you're gonna believe me over them?  Really? 

If anything is "whitey talk," it's the notion that one drop of blood makes you an Indian (or anything else)  Some Indians are worried that the legal blood quantum criterion for being Native is going to thin Native blood down so much as to make it almost pointless.

Anyway I thought you were of Aztec descent (?).  Why use a Lakota term for whitey?




"If the Nation you claim to be from doesn't claim you, you're not Indian."

"...and never were"


Excellent post, Laurel! I like the addition to what I said in the other thread; really completes my thoughts.

I wasn't talking about disenrollments; the topic of discussion was PODIA's. If you have no connection to your Nation, no sense of community, you cannot in all honesty call yourself an Indian. That is not "whitey talk"; it's a fact of life. If you can't understand this, you aren't Indian. It is what it is. 

Thanks, but after reading Rattlebone's post I looked back over all my own posts and decided I haven't said much that's constructive or enlightening--and I run off at the mouth once in awhile.  I love the board, and will continue to read, but I'm going to close my account so I won't be tempted to post.

Best wishes to all.

 I just hope that you didn't think anything I said meant that  I disliked you or anything. I don't feel your involvement in helping to hunt down frauds or exploiters is a bad thing, so please don't take it that way. I know everyone here would, and does appreciate any help you are giving them in that regards.


Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2009, 08:16:39 pm »
 P.S

 I have said nothing in this thread that in any way means I don't value their opinions or them as a person. I am enjoying this conversation, and I do like hearing the points of views of others even if they are the opposite of mine.

 Like Earth7 for example probably does not agree with anything I have said in this thread, and I often times don't agree with her. However I know she is a good woman, and has my utmost respect. I share a common friend with her, and they have verified that she is a good woman. So I might not agree with her, but I respect her as a person and her viewpoint.

 That goes for everyone I have seen post here as well. I am not flaming anyone and do not wish anyone to see it that way.

 I see this as a discussion that could bring some understanding and common ground, and I think that is very much needed here.

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1415
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2009, 08:45:21 am »
P.S

 I have said nothing in this thread that in any way means I don't value their opinions or them as a person. I am enjoying this conversation, and I do like hearing the points of views of others even if they are the opposite of mine.

 Like Earth7 for example probably does not agree with anything I have said in this thread, and I often times don't agree with her. However I know she is a good woman, and has my utmost respect. I share a common friend with her, and they have verified that she is a good woman. So I might not agree with her, but I respect her as a person and her viewpoint.

 That goes for everyone I have seen post here as well. I am not flaming anyone and do not wish anyone to see it that way.

 I see this as a discussion that could bring some understanding and common ground, and I think that is very much needed here.

why thank you rattlebone,

I think my thinking come from the fact that i live on the reservation,
I am one of those kind of people-
enrolled
counted as a full-blood
live on the reservation
live my culture
so everthing i do or say come from that fact.
I also find that because of the fact of whom I am
I become a target for people who don't live on the rez or among their people,
people who find that my blood quantum is offensive, that something is wrong with me
because I choose to live among my family and relatives.

I admitt that sometime i don't understand the want or need for people to
want to claim to be native that never live the culture. 
I get upset when people who have little understanding of
culture.

I guess the point is that I have cousins who are not enrolled due to their
grandma marrying outside the tribe, and their parents marrying outside the
tribe and themselves so they are not enrolled. they have also took much
of the american culture as their own.
So they are not tribal members nor are they considered tribal members
but they are my relatives
In Spirit

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2009, 02:05:53 am »
P.S

 I have said nothing in this thread that in any way means I don't value their opinions or them as a person. I am enjoying this conversation, and I do like hearing the points of views of others even if they are the opposite of mine.

 Like Earth7 for example probably does not agree with anything I have said in this thread, and I often times don't agree with her. However I know she is a good woman, and has my utmost respect. I share a common friend with her, and they have verified that she is a good woman. So I might not agree with her, but I respect her as a person and her viewpoint.

 That goes for everyone I have seen post here as well. I am not flaming anyone and do not wish anyone to see it that way.

 I see this as a discussion that could bring some understanding and common ground, and I think that is very much needed here.

why thank you rattlebone,

I think my thinking come from the fact that i live on the reservation,
I am one of those kind of people-
enrolled
counted as a full-blood
live on the reservation
live my culture
so everthing i do or say come from that fact.
I also find that because of the fact of whom I am
I become a target for people who don't live on the rez or among their people,
people who find that my blood quantum is offensive, that something is wrong with me
because I choose to live among my family and relatives.

I admitt that sometime i don't understand the want or need for people to
want to claim to be native that never live the culture. 
I get upset when people who have little understanding of
culture.

I guess the point is that I have cousins who are not enrolled due to their
grandma marrying outside the tribe, and their parents marrying outside the
tribe and themselves so they are not enrolled. they have also took much
of the american culture as their own.
So they are not tribal members nor are they considered tribal members
but they are my relatives

and I'd like to say I understand your viewpoint here. However, on the other side, many , who target you feel exactly the same way you do. They feel that they are the ones who have been targeted by those born on the rez. Its a cycle really. There is a history behind this. I could say I know what it is , but then its turns into a blame game thing.

For us here in L.A. it went like this though. Those born on the rez were being admired. Looked up to. Put on a pedestal , by those of us born without a rez or land base. I will say specifically xicanos or mexican natives - to be fair. Now this kind of thing is really the fault of the people who were putting someone up on a pedestal. The ones being put on the pedestal weren't necessarily asking to be put way high up there ,but this did happen anyways.

Imagine someone or somepeople being put high on a pedestal, after a while that person or people naturally start to feed into it themselves, and / or start believing it, acting it out, and then sometimes start stepping on the people "below". Now this wasn't their fault really, the people "below" put their own self there. BUT once the pedestalled people/persons started feeding into it themselves, now some of the responsibility falls on them. They had a choice whether or not to feed into it after all.

Regardless of all that. Once the people below started realizing that they shouldn't be below, they became angered . They also became resentul.

WHY RESENTFUL? cause the people who were put on pedestals actually were there to help. They were asked to help. They offered there help. The whole high horse and arrogance that was born out of it, was not the goal or intentions of those doing the helping. YES the helpers became arrogant and conceited, but they didn't become this way alone. The "students" help to make the "teachers" become arrogant and conceited. So because the students OWE all their knowledge to the arrogant teachers, well the students became resentful and start to bash on the teachers.

I understand how this happened. I believe it to be wrong. BUt this is what happened. By the "student's bashing their 'teacher" they show that they take no responsibility in the matter between our peoples.

So what I am saying is kinda fucked up on my part, and I apologize, i don't mean to offend , but this is what I noticed happened here in Los Angeles.
Those with the land base came first after all. So the atitude toward others without a land base was first in a way. BUT in reality the animosity happened at the same time when the exchange of knowledge and urban culture took place between those on the rez and those off.

This isn't really about rez people though or urban people. This is a scenario our stories warn us about. The human flaws and mistakes people can make. No one should place themselves above anyone else. BUt to add No one should place themselves below. when being praised we also need to try to remain humble. That ain't easy either. I think we all like a compliment right?

Sorry dude, I hope I don't sound like I'm saying its all your fault. I am trying my best to word this right.

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 681
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2009, 03:42:26 am »
Sorry i've been so slow to respond, but I wanted to take the time to reread some past posts. , to make sure I understand what is being said and to see if I can put my finger on exactly what I disagree with.

So i'm going to try and explain what I am hearing and what it is I am disagreeing with...

First off i agree there is some individuals and groups of Native people who aren't recognized who should be, and if people wanted to discuss a specific instance of this - that would be interesting , and it wouldn't seem like there was some other agenda.   

But I have the impression from it's title this thread wasn't started  to discuss a specific example of people in a particular area not being recognized as Native people when they should be.

It seems to me , this one example was chosen because people wanted to take this situation and then try to transfer the unfairnes of this onto completely unrelated situations.

As I understand it, the main purpose of this message board is to educate people about respecting the right of indigenous people to control , maintain and protect their own identities , resources and cultures . In order to do this some protective boundaries are necessary, and one of the most primary boundaries is the right of indigenous communities to define their own membership, and pick their own spiritual and political leaders.

What concerns me is it seems some people are repeatedly undermining respect for those protective boundaries by smearing tribes who choose to have some protective boundaries by trying to associate them with unrelated instances of wrong doing and repeatedly suggesting the way tribes decide to define themselves is wrong, and should not be respected. .

Rattlebone , you say you don't like New Age exploiters, but I notice almost all your posts are advocating for PODIAs having a right to be included ....

Some of these threads are below...

http://newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1835.0

http://newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1632.15

Though you are polite and you come across as someone who is taking a principled stand on certain issues, reading through your posts i'm still not clear what those principles are.

On one hand you make a lot of statements suggesting people or tribal policies that exclude PODIAs in any way are mean and a form of persecution , but on the other hand you back peddle and say you aren't thinking just anybody with a story of a gr gr gr grandparent being NDN should be included.

And then you backpeddle on that and say that you don't think those people should be excluded either if they seem nice and just want to learn.

I basicly agree with you that the definition of who is a member of a Native community isn't always defined by BQ , and can include people in some ways who are not officially recognized through enrollment. 

For example , I know someone who is 1/4 BQ . Their parent who was 1/2 left when they were a baby and they were raised by their entirely non native parent with no connection to a native community . They don't make a big deal out of this. I was aquainted with them more than 10 years before it ever came up in a conversation. They are probably are eligible to be enrolled , but they say they don't think it would be right for them to take advantage of that, because they don't really have a connection with a Native community.

On the other hand, I know someone else who is blond blue eyed with a BQ somewhere between 1/16 and 1/32.  They were raised in large part by relatives who had married back into the tribe. They aren't enrolled and they would have to be 1/4 BQ to enroll , so they are no where near what they would need to do this. But they grew up in a native community and still have many relatives in this community . This person is mostly non native by blood but their primary identity is that they are NDN . And even though this person is blond and blue eyed I have never heard any Native people dispute this , or dispute their right to participate in some aspects of the culture. There is however some things this person is excluded from. I guess they could get mad that this isn't fair, but in traditional societies lots of people are excluded from lots of things. Men are excluded from womans ceremonies, women are excluded from mens ceremonies, certain clans are excluded from ceremonies belonging to other clans ect ect ect. Respecting these boundaries is about respecting the structure of the culture, not that people are being pushed out or persecuted.  This person I know is respectful and accepts that. From what I have seen Native people tend to be really generous about including people ,  and what upsets me is the only people I know of that feel "pushed out" are people who wrongly try to push their way in. I'm sure there is exceptions to this, but when I see you suggesting these pushy people are actually being persecuted by being excluded , it seems really unfair in the large majority of cases.

What you don't seem to understand is the main reason PODIAs are excluded isn't because people are being mean and persecuting them, it's because including them creates a lot of very real problems. One of the roots of these problems is that PODIAs come from a mainly non native cultural perspective which assumes individual accomplishment and personal  satisfaction are more important than serving the long term health of the whole community, and the way to achieve this is through being pushy.

Another thing i notice which I find disturbing is though you seem to be repeatedly advocating that PODIAs should have access to learn about and participate in traditional cultures and ceremonies, when people ask questions and are reluctent to support people using ceremonies in ways that may go against the decisions of the traditional leaders who are trying to protect these ceremonies , you have no problem trying to discredit these people who are concerned about cultural protection by pointing out they appear to be thin blooded. (such as in the thread on Ben Carnes )


http://newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1655.165

I don't feel comfortable with this , especially as you seem to have a lot to say about the rights of PODIAs when it comes to having access to whatever parts of a culture they want. 

I also notice you didn't answer any of the numbered questions i asked you . The reason I asked those questions is if you did , I think the lack of integrity in your line of reasoning would have become obvious and I am guessing that is why you side steped this.

Sorry Rattlebone, as much as i appreciate your politeness, and I am willing to assume you mean well and haven't completely thought this through, it seems to me the only "principal" you are defending is that you and your friends should be able to do whatever you like, and anyone who disagrees or tries to put some limits on this will be demonized and discredited.

Why are you asking ime and Al what our tribe is and if we are enrolled? 

As i want to remain anonymous I don't say much about myself, and if i am talking about an issue which concerns a specific tribe , like a librarian i try to provide links to a credible source so people can see where recognized Native communities stand on an issue. People outside these communities who want to redefine things to suit themselves do get annoyed with me for insisting the tribes that were strong enough to be federally recognized need to be the ones creating these definitions however, I don't see where I have ever created my own definitions, though i do try and explain these definitions to people and why respecting these definitions which are created by indigenous communities is important. 

Even if it isn't always perfect, what seems important to me is that it is the tribes and people enrolled in them who are selected as leaders by their own people that create these definitions , and not someone outside the tribes. 

I don't think people need to be enrolled to support tribes in maintaining their rightful control over their membership , resources and culture.

 Oh and Koyoteh ... I think you need to read what people are saying more carefully.

Earth told you once she isn't a dude, and you called her dude again ...  :o
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 04:01:16 am by Moma_porcupine »

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2009, 05:25:19 am »
out here , even the chicks call each other dude, heheheheh

just the way we talk here

and we say bro a lot

and carnal

and sister , hermana

and lots a other stuff. Yeah kinda mixed  but that the way we go.

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2009, 05:37:57 am »
yes real problems do arise when including the people that are called PODIAS.

No argument there. To me thats the first logical , clear cut, unbiased thing anyone has said.

So the discussion comes after though, as to how to deal with the problems that come up.

That is really what we are all discussing. And what is being done, and what is being proposed and considered by everyone.

What we are also discussing is the disagreement on how some people have chosen to deal with these problems.

The topic isn't really about being pushed out. Being pushed out is only one way some have chosen to deal with their problem.

Others disassociate, or seperate or blacklist, or discredit, or disenroll , or create divisive labels, and more.

That is also part of the discussion. Some say it is this way and others say no its not.

The discussion isn't , or wasn't supposed to be about the real fakes and frauds but more about the ones caught in the crossfire and wrongly accused or incorrectly labeled and defined. Of course thats where it gets complicated cause how one feels about someone is different than the next DUDE.

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2009, 09:51:19 pm »
yes real problems do arise when including the people that are called PODIAS.


The discussion isn't , or wasn't supposed to be about the real fakes and frauds but more about the ones caught in the crossfire and wrongly accused or incorrectly labeled and defined. Of course thats where it gets complicated cause how one feels about someone is different than the next DUDE.


  Yea that is exactly how I see it too, but of course you know me....im going to be complicated and detailed about conversations like this lol.

 I also just don't like blanket terms when they are used in regards to human beings because it is like treating a person like a number instead of a human being.

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2009, 01:25:49 am »




Quote
First off i agree there is some individuals and groups of Native people who aren't recognized who should be, and if people wanted to discuss a specific instance of this - that would be interesting , and it wouldn't seem like there was some other agenda.
   

 Okay, I think here you are understanding, or at least already am familiar with some of the things that make me object to certain words and things said on this site.

 Now of course us coming to an understanding on how the we both each view this circumstance and finding a common ground on it is the thing to shoot for.


Quote
It seems to me , this one example was chosen because people wanted to take this situation and then try to transfer the unfairnes of this onto completely unrelated situations.

 No I don't really think so, but when you put it this way I do realize and understand the things said in this thread that would make you see it that way. I think some of the points made on this thread have taken things that way, but I don't think it was intentional.

 It does seem to me though that often times you and others here do sorta blur together defending sovereignty, traditions, and identity as if the are all the same things. It in theory is/was supposed to go hand in hand I suppose, but though tribes have always been sovereign and it was never given to our peoples when we already had it; however tribal governments often times often times come in conflict with the wishes of their traditional people.

  It is my understanding that Dickie Wilson of Pine Ridge back in the 1970's, and his regime were, oppressing traditional people within his nation. So though I am in now way attacking tribal sovereignty, I do say that often times in the both past and present tribal governments serve the purposes of the Federal Government and not the well being of their own tribal members.

 I bring all of this up, because as I said above I feel you blur all these things together when they are often times not really tied in as maybe they should be.

 You speak as if I am saying these so called PODIA's should be allowed to push themselves into tribal membership or ceremony. I have never advocated or said any such thing. Nor do I see them as this great threat as you try and say they are.

 If you can point to me in the direction of anything going through the House, Senate, or any federal office in which some group of PODIA people are getting legislation or something related to it in which they are getting themselves forced into tribal membership; then I will be obliged to see things you way when you speak of this threat.

 On the contrary I do see many organizations popping up all over the country like Citizens For Equal Rights or whatever they are called that are trying to have tribal Sovereignty removed completely, and are probably one of the biggest growing threats to our nations to date. They have nothing to do with this PODIA issue, and are just Eurocentric hateful whites for the most part, who think the United States should do away with tribal recognition completely, and terminate everyone.

  One thing I was taught, and I do believe I brought this up in the EMC thread, was that I do believe you need the permission from elders of the nation who's land you wish to do a ceremony on. I also was taught that you should get permission from the elders of your own tribe to. In saying this I did point out this was one place where I knew Ben Carnes needed to fix the situation.

 However in regards to this all I don't see any of this as PODIA's demanding they should be allowed in ceremony, nor do I feel they should go demanding it either. If somebody like this demands anything, or goes off and tries to do it themselves after being turned away then they came in a bad way in the first place.  In going off and doing it themselves I don't see it as a thin blood,PODIA, or unrecognized person issue. What it becomes is an exploiter/cultural appropriation issue, and even full bloods can do that; it should be called an exploiter issue and not a PODIA one.





Quote
As I understand it, the main purpose of this message board is to educate people about respecting the right of indigenous people to control , maintain and protect their own identities , resources and cultures . In order to do this some protective boundaries are necessary, and one of the most primary boundaries is the right of indigenous communities to define their own membership, and pick their own spiritual and political leaders.



  I don't think anyone is challenging any of this really. I do think there are some Grey area's in topics that concern these issues and sometimes it may seem as though that some who do point them out are challenging it all in a harmful fashion when that may not be their intention.




Quote
What concerns me is it seems some people are repeatedly undermining respect for those protective boundaries by smearing tribes who choose to have some protective boundaries by trying to associate them with unrelated instances of wrong doing and repeatedly suggesting the way tribes decide to define themselves is wrong, and should not be respected. .


  Do you respect everything that the United States and it's leaders do? I agree the tribes should not be associated with unrelated issues, however not every decision a tribal council makes is a good one, even in regards to how they define themselves...dis enrollments are perfectly good evidence of that.



Quote
Rattlebone , you say you don't like New Age exploiters, but I notice almost all your posts are advocating for PODIAs having a right to be included ....

Some of these threads are below...

http://newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1835.0

http://newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1632.15



  No I was not doing so in such a blanket way as you try and make it seem here. I am reading you saying this as if I am saying that anybody that comes and says " I have some ggggg grandmother" and therefore should be seen as Indian. What I was doing was the same as I am in this thread and saying that people should not be judged on BQ, and like the word PODIA isn't really traditional.

  The difference between you and I in this topic is that I do not view people as Indian or part Indian....I view somebody as simply Indian or non Indian. To me the word PODIA is sorta like calling somebody "part Indian," and I don't view people in such a way regardless of BQ or skin color.

  Plus given history and things that  have happened I don't view that a person must do A,B,C and to be considered Indian. The world is way more complicated then that. Such is the case of my  friend who's tribe once occupied the Bay area of California. He looks mixed, and that might be from Mexican blood I dunno. I don't know if he is "culturally Indian" as in knowing the culture of his tribe. For all I know he might even be Christian on top of it all. Thing is he is known and recognized by the Indian people in my area as Indian, and I see him the same way. I don't need any tribal or federal government to tell me if what I think of him is true or not.



Quote
Though you are polite and you come across as someone who is taking a principled stand on certain issues, reading through your posts i'm still not clear what those principles are.


   I have come to a place here where I do recognize your reason for using the word PODIA. It might be a an easy way to say things instead of having to say "somebody that claims a gggg grandmother and thinks they are Indian," and things of that nature. Myself personally, I would just consider them non Indian and say that. I would feel that using a word such as PODIA I would look as though I am condemning somebody for being mixed or what not. As I said I simply view somebody as Indian based on them being a member of my community, or some other community. If they are just claiming some distant relative they can't prove, a tribe they have no ties to, and have no ties to any Indian community; then to me they are simply NON Indian.

  The word PODIA as I understand is supposed to mean "Persons OF Distant Indian Ancestry," and yet I have recently read Dr. Al use it to explain Mexicans that are not familiar with their Indian culture and try to claim it.

 Would you refer to a full blood raised by whites who does not know their culture as a PODIA when their ancestry is not distant? A Mexican is not distant in ancestry either the majority of the time now are they when the majority of their blood is Indian?

 So your word PODIA is being used inter-changeably now for unrelated circumstances. If this full blood and his Mexican counterparts are not really Indian because they don't know their culture, then do they become Indian if and when they learn it?

 If a Mexican can be a PODIA, and learn their true culture and thus become an Indian. Shouldn't that be the same as some low BQ person you would call a PODIA? In that regards they should never be referred to that again as they are Indian and part of their community now aren't they?

 Sure some lower BQ won't experience most of the racism a fullblood person will, and maybe that should be the only thing really pointed out. I have had conversations with people off the net about circumstances such as the differences in life experience in regards to low BQ and High BQ, but it was not meant to be an insult for either side. It was about understanding and life experience.





Quote
On one hand you make a lot of statements suggesting people or tribal policies that exclude PODIAs in any way are mean and a form of persecution , but on the other hand you back peddle and say you aren't thinking just anybody with a story of a gr gr gr grandparent being NDN should be included.

 You must have not read or understand what I said in my last post.

 I did point out how tribes like the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma have no BQ requirements and so they are enrolling people that do have gggggggg grandmother stories literally if they can "prove it." I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with it necessarily, but I do feel that these tribes that enroll in such a way should at least have these born today Indians have to learn about the history of their tribe. I think they should even make them take language classes before they can enroll, and I think they should maybe  make them pay for their own classes. The United States and other nations have requirements before citizenship don't they?

 Even in tribes that have no BQ requirements I do believe a number of them do have clauses in their tribal rules that say that only person's of certain BQ are entitled to certain benefits including the right to run for tribal council.  I have absolutely no problem with any of that either whatsoever.

  So that in mind, as I pointed out to Laurel, we are a political class often and not a typical minority. The definition of who is and who is not an Indian varies very widely, and often times on this site I do see people being very rigid in regards to it.

 You yourself speak of Indigenous culture and community in a sort of rigid way, and at times almost speak of "recognition" as an absolute. There are tribes on the east coast that have no language left, virtually none of their original culture if any at all, and are low BQ in general. In those cases such as in the Pequot in Conn who even Native critics say lack Pequot language or culture on top of low BQ; where do we draw the line and who has the right to draw such lines?


 
Quote
And then you backpeddle on that and say that you don't think those people should be excluded either if they seem nice and just want to learn.


 I have never back peddled on anything. If you really understood what I was saying in my last post, and in much of what I have said in this one you would understood that. If a person comes to some elder or spiritual leader in a good way and wishes to learn, it is the choice of that elder or spiritual leader to teach them. I have seen it done many times, and have even seen leaders allow NON Indians into sweats with them on a regular basis. All of this of course has a way more then somebody being "being nice and just wanting to learn."

 

Quote
I basicly agree with you that the definition of who is a member of a Native community isn't always defined by BQ , and can include people in some ways who are not officially recognized through enrollment. 

For example , I know someone who is 1/4 BQ . Their parent who was 1/2 left when they were a baby and they were raised by their entirely non native parent with no connection to a native community . They don't make a big deal out of this. I was aquainted with them more than 10 years before it ever came up in a conversation. They are probably are eligible to be enrolled , but they say they don't think it would be right for them to take advantage of that, because they don't really have a connection with a Native community.

On the other hand, I know someone else who is blond blue eyed with a BQ somewhere between 1/16 and 1/32.  They were raised in large part by relatives who had married back into the tribe. They aren't enrolled and they would have to be 1/4 BQ to enroll , so they are no where near what they would need to do this. But they grew up in a native community and still have many relatives in this community . This person is mostly non native by blood but their primary identity is that they are NDN . And even though this person is blond and blue eyed I have never heard any Native people dispute this , or dispute their right to participate in some aspects of the culture.



  So in this statement you are recognizing the Grey area's I have long pointed out, and how there really can not be a rigid definition of whom is Indian or not based on circumstances such as these. There are so many more broader circumstances then even these you pointed out, and we could discuss them forever.




Quote
There is however some things this person is excluded from. I guess they could get mad that this isn't fair, but in traditional societies lots of people are excluded from lots of things. Men are excluded from womans ceremonies, women are excluded from mens ceremonies, certain clans are excluded from ceremonies belonging to other clans ect ect ect.


  This has to do what with PODIA or BQ exactly? You are talking about traditional things here, and even you yourself realize that there are cases where somebody as low as 1/32 can traditionally been seen as Indian and participate in the ceremonies of their tribe? So this really has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

 What I do see though in some agreement with you is Americans, taking American civil rights ideas and trying to apply them to Native society and that simply does not work. Have seen a mostly full blooded Gay man, and what seemed like a mostly full blooded transvestite man think they could try and dance in women's dances at a local powwow. Sure these are not traditional ceromonies, and are just powwow dances, but I think we see eye to eye on things such as this.

 Still this has nothing to do with PODIA's or BQ unless a tribe has a specific rule that such people can not participate in certain ceremony.



Quote
Respecting these boundaries is about respecting the structure of the culture, not that people are being pushed out or persecuted.  This person I know is respectful and accepts that. From what I have seen Native people tend to be really generous about including people ,  and what upsets me is the only people I know of that feel "pushed out" are people who wrongly try to push their way in. I'm sure there is exceptions to this, but when I see you suggesting these pushy people are actually being persecuted by being excluded , it seems really unfair in the large majority of cases.


  Where have I ever out right advocated that these "pushy people" should be allowed in?

I have argued on behalf of these "exceptions" that even you point out and nothing more.

 If you think that mixed people, even those who are enrolled are not persecuted or treated very badly for being mixed, then it would make me wonder if you are part of any Indian community. I know of a young girl who is treated very badly by her own relatives because of it. I can name countless examples of it I see all the time in my life.


Quote
What you don't seem to understand is the main reason PODIAs are excluded isn't because people are being mean and persecuting them, it's because including them creates a lot of very real problems.


  You keep saying this, and I fail to see what you are talking about. With all the major problems in Indian country, PODIA's is no place on the list of anything important in any sort of major way.

 Perhaps you mean in regards to ceremony and things of that nature, but I do not see PODIA's as the problem. What I see is the real problem is the exploiters and the people they victimize which might be people looking to reconnect for whatever reason.

 If PODIA's are taking advantage of in these cases it is not they that are the problems, but the exploiter's themselves. Blaming a PODIA for what is done to them is not unlike trying to get rid of the patient and not  the disease that ills them.

Quote
One of the roots of these problems is that PODIAs come from a mainly non native cultural perspective which assumes individual accomplishment and personal  satisfaction are more important than serving the long term health of the whole community, and the way to achieve this is through being pushy.


The exact same thing can be said of Natives that are raised in NON native families, or simply don't care about their culture. This has nothing to do with their degree of Indian blood or the lack there of. It is more a situation of needing to unlearn what has been taught by mainstream western society, and learning the values of an Indigenous community and people.

 So in this regards to place blame on somebody specifically for the lost connections or degree of Indian blood is a major fallacy here.

 You are born and raised in a culture, or you learn it. This doesn't have a thing to do with DNA.
Quote
Another thing i notice which I find disturbing is though you seem to be repeatedly advocating that PODIAs should have access to learn about and participate in traditional cultures and ceremonies, when people ask questions and are reluctent to support people using ceremonies in ways that may go against the decisions of the traditional leaders who are trying to protect these ceremonies , you have no problem trying to discredit these people who are concerned about cultural protection by pointing out they appear to be thin blooded. (such as in the thread on Ben Carnes )


http://newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1655.165

I don't feel comfortable with this , especially as you seem to have a lot to say about the rights of PODIAs when it comes to having access to whatever parts of a culture they want.



  Hypocrisy isn't it?

 Thing is was I really saying things in such a way as you say I was, or was I pointing out the hypocrisy of those individuals? I think you should go back and read what I was saying a lot closer as what I was saying against them.

  Let's look at my exact words there as you have pointed out...

 " I do believe that both Walks and yourself are far less then 1/4 native by blood. As a matter of fact as already pointed out, and acknowledged by Walks himself; he is not enrolled, and probably has no actual proof that he is native whatsoever.

  It is my understanding that you claim to be Cherokee, but grew up in New Mexico or something like that.

 So since this is a point you feel is valid here in this investigation of Mr. Carnes, how do you justify yourself claiming to be Native and being involved in any ceremony?

  I have seen pictures of both yourself and Walks at the Carnes residence, and of course Walks looks white and to date has no proof of his claims to being Indian other then some family story.

 So how was Walks being there not a problem for you then, as it is now considering he is very much one of these PODIA people you speak of?

  If Walks does not fall into this PODIA category, then I would like to hear an explanation of how he does not fall into this category, and what your definition of a PODIA since you are making this aspect of the Carnes's behavior an issue.

  I do not view this as sidetracking on my part since it is a valid statement that you have presented that should be asked of you "the accuser" as well since I do know about both Walks and yourself."



  I said these things because Tachia Hawks is friends with Walks whom in that thread admitted he had no proof of who he said he was, was not enrolled, and was "told stories of being Cherokee as a child." Isn't that a typical story coming from one of your PODIA's who says they are Indian and want to "reconnect.?"

  Ironically when Walks, a "self identified Cherokee" was going to a Choctaw man running Lakota style Sun Dances, Tachia had no objections to any of it. In fact as can be seen she at first came into that thread in support of Ben Carnes. So it was okay for her PODIA friend to go the Ben Carnes to learn back when they "were all still friends."

 Then yes I pointed out that I believe she was less then 1/4 herself. I said this because I have seen her, and picture of her parents, grandparents; all of which did not look Indian to me in the slightest.

 Should I be judging her or her family as Indians based on their looks or pictures? Going by my own words in this thread, no I should not be and have always been an advocate against that.

  However she in the thread you linked here said something I qouted about "podia's infiltrating ceremonies."

 So why does she not see her friend Walks as a PODIA infiltrating ceremony as these people she spoke of? Did she talk to each one of them on an individual basis, and how well does she know any of them?

 How do we not know somebody would see both her and Walks at a ceremony and just assume they are PODIA exploiters out to infiltrate just based on their "looks?"

 I was told she has never attended a ceremony at the EMC, so there is a question of how she can be certain of anything at all she is saying in these regards.

 So I hope you now got my point over there, and now realize your words here and the link to that thread was you grossly misunderstanding my point.


Quote
I also notice you didn't answer any of the numbered questions i asked you . The reason I asked those questions is if you did , I think the lack of integrity in your line of reasoning would have become obvious and I am guessing that is why you side steped this.


 No, I ignored them because you like myself have or had gone over a lot of those in this thread, or now have in more detail. So of those questions could have more then one answer from both you and I if you really think about it. Some of them could have the same Grey area's we have went over here already, and answering them would be redundant.


Quote
Sorry Rattlebone, as much as i appreciate your politeness, and I am willing to assume you mean well and haven't completely thought this through, it seems to me the only "principal" you are defending is that you and your friends should be able to do whatever you like, and anyone who disagrees or tries to put some limits on this will be demonized and discredited.


 What friends are these that you speak of. I wasn't aware that you know any of my friends off of the internet?

  As for my online friends....that thread is research needed and nothing has been proven either way now has it? Besides I have even in this thread and that thread pointed out a few flaws in what the Carnes are doing in regards to not having Ute permission on their traditional lands.Then my biggest objection was to the hypocrisy of a few individuals and their statements that I have now pointed out here as well, and my knowledge of other issues that you don't know about surrounding them that does come into play in that situation.

 Of course this thread is not about that one, and it is kind of wrong for you to mention it here since I will get in trouble for speaking of it, and you will not.


Quote
Why are you asking ime and Al what our tribe is and if we are enrolled? 

 Well both you and Al seem to think it is pertinent for you both to know the details of the lives of everyone and if they are enrolled etc. I guess that comes into play for you to know what that person knows or doesn't know...if what they say is valid.

  Yet both of you are a bit mysterious, and a lot of that causes great controversy about both of you.

 Besides knowing more about both of you would help to understand more of where you are coming from and why you have some of your points of view. Having the degree or that degree doesn't mean anything t me, and nor does who you have both worked with. That doesn't say exactly who or what you both are.

 Plus my question of enrollment of Dr. Al comes into play with some of his statements that are rigid in terms of who is Indian or not, and how they related to being recognized or not.
 

I do for one believe Dr.Al is an Indian without any doubt. I do agree with his work on here and in the real world, no question there. I just think that he like you uses double standards sometimes that you don't realize often it.




Quote
As i want to remain anonymous I don't say much about myself, and if i am talking about an issue which concerns a specific tribe , like a librarian i try to provide links to a credible source so people can see where recognized Native communities stand on an issue. People outside these communities who want to redefine things to suit themselves do get annoyed with me for insisting the tribes that were strong enough to be federally recognized need to be the ones creating these definitions however, I don't see where I have ever created my own definitions, though i do try and explain these definitions to people and why respecting these definitions which are created by indigenous communities is important. 

  I understand that, but according to Dr. Al you don't have that right to being anonymous as he does not recognize that right for others on here. That was already stated and demonstrated on this site.

Quote
Even if it isn't always perfect, what seems important to me is that it is the tribes and people enrolled in them who are selected as leaders by their own people that create these definitions , and not someone outside the tribes.
 

  I agree with you for the most part, but sometimes it does work like the justice system....every once in a while the innocent will be convicted, and even executed.

  My disagreements with this have little to do with PODIA's, but rather with the federal government and the problems it created that have lead to some of these circumstances.

 

Quote
I don't think people need to be enrolled to support tribes in maintaining their rightful control over their membership , resources and culture.

 I don't either, but I don't think NON's should be involved in defining who is or is not Indian. The feds have made a mess out of that already.

 A tribe near me just dis enrolled half of it's membership, and I don't think anyone should be supporting that.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 06:29:58 pm by Rattlebone »

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2009, 04:18:04 am »
Quote
For us here in L.A. it went like this though. Those born on the rez were being admired. Looked up to. Put on a pedestal , by those of us born without a rez or land base. I will say specifically xicanos or mexican natives - to be fair. Now this kind of thing is really the fault of the people who were putting someone up on a pedestal. The ones being put on the pedestal weren't necessarily asking to be put way high up there ,but this did happen anyways.


Koyoteh, the Xicanos and Mexican Natives, yeah, you guys are NDN, and I agree with that. ( Most of um anyways, not all ).  And they should be accepted as fellow Natives.  But its not the responsibility of the US or the BIA, or the state of California to recognize Indians from other countries whether it be Mexico, Peru, or Colombia.  If your tribe is from US territory, then you should be recognized, yours the ( Mexica ) are from Mexico.  ( Regardless of when and how they came.   Sorry, I still don't buy the whole Aztlan argument.  Your people could have come yesterday, or it could have been a 100 years ago.  But they are not historical tribes of the US.

Indians here aren’t' put on a pedestal.  They have rights here cause the US government stole the land and ripped off Natives.  Treaties were made with them.  Indian Nations have sovereignly because the US government recognizes something that Indian Nations have always had, and it is not something that was given to us.  I hate when people say. " Oh, yeah, Indians have special rights."  They are not special rights, it is inherent sovereignty that has always existed.  The Spinards starting with Cortez did the same thing in Mexico.  But that's not our problem. 

But with that said, I do understand where Koyoteh is coming from.  I don’t know how some people, and I’ve heard this form all kinds of people here in the US. (Whites, Indians, Blacks, ect), that think that some how Indians cease to exist at the Rio Grande River, or that some Chicanos aren’t’ Indian when most clearly are.  Its actually pretty funny really.  And just cause a lot of Indians in Mexico don't identity as such is besides the point.

Would a blond haired blue eyed German cease to be white if he was left at the doorstep of a family in China, and never knew his heritage.  Later when he grew up, I would say he is white but is culturally Chinese.  If he was a citizen of China, he would be politically Chinese also.  But if he wanted to be proud of his white heritage then who has to right to tell him he doesn't? 

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2009, 08:09:16 am »
Quote
But its not the responsibility of the US or the BIA, or the state of California to recognize Indians from other countries whether it be Mexico, Peru, or Colombia.  If your tribe is from US territory, then you should be recognized, yours the ( Mexica ) are from Mexico.  ( Regardless of when and how they came.   Sorry, I still don't buy the whole Aztlan argument.  Your people could have come yesterday, or it could have been a 100 years ago.  But they are not historical tribes of the US.
i never claimed the BIA or any govt needs to recognize us. In fact, we are better off without their recognition. This whole thing about recognition from the u.s. is about politics. Tribes from everywhere can get caught up in it. However, even the u.s. recognizes nations outside of u.s. territory. That is also politics. The u.s. recognizes, from the point of view of 'nation to nation" , other nations that even are u.s. enemies. Its a matter of respect AND politics. That a whole nother aspect of recognition that goes beyond u.s. treaties. The issue of native Soverighnty is beyoned current political borders. Its also beyond just the idea of 'nation' it is about INDIVIDUAL sovereignty as well.

On these ends of the politics , this is where we stand. Not the kind about treaties and not just from the u.s. This is going on all over the americas. not just here.
These politics are not about going against other native nations and violating their sovereignty or their struggles toward it. In fact many of us ally ourselves with them and physically support them. Here in the u.s.and elsewhere in the americas. We are beyond borders.
Like we say, WE didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed us! and we truly believe that. This doesn't mean we'd rather live somewhere else either as some even try to sneak in this old trick.


Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2009, 08:10:42 am »
yes real problems do arise when including the people that are called PODIAS.


The discussion isn't , or wasn't supposed to be about the real fakes and frauds but more about the ones caught in the crossfire and wrongly accused or incorrectly labeled and defined. Of course thats where it gets complicated cause how one feels about someone is different than the next DUDE.


  Yea that is exactly how I see it too, but of course you know me....im going to be complicated and detailed about conversations like this lol.

 I also just don't like blanket terms when they are used in regards to human beings because it is like treating a person like a number instead of a human being.
yeah i get wordy but that what i was trying to say . you said it in a nutshell.

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2009, 08:28:13 am »
Quote
Sorry, I still don't buy the whole Aztlan argument.  Your people could have come yesterday, or it could have been a 100 years ago.  But they are not historical tribes of the US.
sorry dude, but it isn't an argument. Aztlan is aztlan and we are home again.  One of many homes whether you like it or not. Does this mean more than that? NO. So I'm home now. Come over so we can have a bbq. Thats all it really means. If others want to feel threatened, its really a personal issue that has more to do about how some  were screwed by some messed up people in the past. but that wasnt' us who did it to them. You asked me about aztlan, mentioned aztlan. I talked about it. It wasn't meant to be an argument in favor of anything at all. If I am in favor of anything that has to do with aztlan , its for my people and other nations to learn more about it. It really is a good story.The basic story that is in the books is very lacking. Its only the intro version. THere is helluva lot more that don't come in books. There are even aspects that connects us to others. Just being able to feel connections is always a cool feeling. Does it mean we have to all play nice? no, but for moments of a cool feeling...coool.

[quotes]Indians here aren’t' put on a pedestal.  They have rights here cause the US government stole the land and ripped off Natives.  Treaties were made with them.  Indian Nations have sovereignly because the US government recognizes something that Indian Nations have always had, and it is not something that was given to us.  I hate when people say. " Oh, yeah, Indians have special rights."  They are not special rights, it is inherent sovereignty that has always existed.  The Spinards starting with Cortez did the same thing in Mexico.  But that's not our problem.[/quote]dude what are you talking about?! You talking to me like i'm a wasichu? dam dude, thought we were over what i am. guess not. What I was talking about wasnt't about that at all. It was personal experiences from myself and others between natives , nations to nations individual nativce to individual native.  From those who were disconnected to those who were born connected. NOT about sovereighnty or how citizens treat natives! LOL its awright i forgive you....but really i forgot why i even mentioned it right now, cause its late and im tired. Its also kinda another thread.


Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2009, 06:08:33 pm »
  Well I am enjoying this conversation here even if I don't agree with people or vice versa. It does make for some good conversation, and a lot of thinking. I really enjoy that, and it actually makes me come to this site more then I did in the past.

 I don't per say agree with the usage of the word PODIA, and have found a few flaws in how it is being applied here. However I can see how using it would make things simple instead of using something like always having to say " a person who claims some gggggg grandmother and thinks they are Indian."

 I have found some instances now where Moma_Porcupine and I see eye to eye on things, and I do find that to be a good thing.

 Hopefully we can learn from each other here, and find common ground.

 I am sure though that there will always be places where we disagree strongly with each other, and criticism will come from it, but that is life and how things go with opinions.

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2009, 09:45:10 pm »
Quote
sorry dude, but it isn't an argument. Aztlan is aztlan and we are home again.  One of many homes whether you like it or not. Does this mean more than that? NO. So I'm home now. Come over so we can have a bbq. Thats all it really means.

Of course you are home Koyoteh.  You were born here, and I think you mentioned your 3rd generation.  The Southwest, and the United States are your home.  And if immigrants come, then its their home to.  What I was refering to was the beleif by some Aztlan supporters that all Indian people in the Americas should be able to roam the Americas and settle and live where ever they please.  That is what I was refereing to. It has nothing to do with you or the millions of other Xicanos and Mexican Americans.  But I don't believe in open borders.  I'm not against immigration, but it should be controlled and limited.  Whatever happened in the past happened.  Nonone can change that.  But as far as I'm concerend, the United States has a defined border with Mexico and Canada, whether some Aztlan supporters like it or not.