Author Topic: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"  (Read 36474 times)

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1415
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #45 on: March 26, 2009, 08:34:26 pm »
What are you purposing then to allow these people to create their our tribe?

You the problem is people were disenrolled due to
Blood Quantum so if they do not have enough blood
for one tribe then they can enrolled in a tribe that
they do have enough blood to enroll in.

If they do not have the blood no problem no longer native.
In Spirit

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #46 on: March 26, 2009, 11:42:42 pm »
Quote
Many years ago while I was tracing my ancestors to get the proof that I needed to obtain a membership in the CNO I became the friend of a Tribal Elder. One day after a learning session about my heritage he said in reference to my desire for a CIDB and a CNO membership, Why do you need a card to prove something that you allready have. Even though I can trace back to where I need to, Dawes, from that day many years ago to this I have never felt the need for a Federal card or to be an enrolled member. The funny thing is that The Tribe accepts me as one of theirs I just can't vote.

LittleOldMan, I still don’t get why you don’t enroll with the CNO if you can?  A lot of people say its just a government card, but really the Tribes decide who their people are in most cases.  Is this because of some kind of animosity to the CNO Government or some other reason?  Why don’t you feel a need to be an enrolled member, when you clearly can be?  I agree that citizenship in a Tribal Nation is not going to change the person one way or the other.  OK, that’s true.  How and where we were raised determines that and a Tribal ID will not magically make someone more or less Indian.  But your people didn’t give up their birth right as others did.  So, to honor the sacrifice of your people and their loyalty to the CN, then why not enroll with the tribe?

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #47 on: March 27, 2009, 06:52:19 am »
if someone has a chance to enroll, legally by whatever means, I think they should enroll. More to the point , I think they should enroll if it will benefit the whole tribe in some way by adding numbers and keeping the tribe alive.

On the other hand , now this might sound like backpeddling for some , if the person is only doing it out of selfishness and greed for some benefits or 'coolness', they should just stay away , even if they can legally do it. Now i say SHOULD.


Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1415
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #48 on: March 27, 2009, 01:39:13 pm »
True, you could be like us come and enrolled if you can prove you belong to us by know your familyand Stay poor like the rest of us
In Spirit

Offline LittleOldMan

  • Posts: 138
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #49 on: March 27, 2009, 06:54:41 pm »
Blackwolf;  Let me try this on for size.  I may decide to enroll.   One of my cousins is working on this now.  There is an honor question with me.  My claim while I believe is valid is so far back and I am so diluted that I am not sure that it would be an honorable course to take.  I also recently found out that there may be a more viable connection on the Choctaw side.  I am researching this at the moment.  While I am not, after reading your comment, as comfortable being not enrolled as I was before I am still not convinced that this would be the right action to take at this time.  I will do some considerable soul searching on this one.  Thank you for your comment I am reconsidering my stance.  At my age I consider all the sides.  "LOM"
Blind unfocused anger is unproductive and can get you hurt.  Controlled and focused anger directed tactically wins wars. Remember the sheath is not the sword.

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #50 on: March 27, 2009, 07:52:27 pm »




Quote
Oh oh I seem to have run into someone who may be as long winded as myself ...

 LOL yes it does look that way now doesn't it. I am actually known for long and complicated posts on myspace boards, but not yet on Indianz.com as I avoid posting there much as of yet due to all of the fighting.

I guess it will make conversations between us interesting to say the least huh.



Quote
The main thing I would be responding to, which hasn't already been said before by many other people would be pointing out numerous examples of where it appears to me that something was said ,  and then you claim that was never said. Which seems kind of a waste of time..

 I have no idea what you are talking about other then I think you take my words out of context very often.
 

Quote
So I am going to try to reply by just staying with the main issue ... which seems to be ( if I understand this correctly ) that you feel using the term PODIA is unfair because you believe people either are entirely Indian or entirely not an Indian, and that people who you see as fully NDN are somehow being put down, discriminated against and persecuted by not being recognized by other NDNs and their own tribes as being fully NDN and instead called PODIAs.

 Yea to keep thing simple I guess you could say that. I view people based on their actions and where their heart seems to be, and not things that they have no control over.

 I see no reason to refer to somebody as a Fullblood, Halfbreed, Mixed blood, or thin blood in the context of saying if they are Indian or not. To do so would be like me always referring to my niece as half Mexican when speaking to her, or about her to anyone. She is simply my relations and my dearly loved family member regardless. So if somebody is Indian and part of the community then they are simply Indian, and are family regardless.

 Sure terms like mixed blood, thin blood might be pertinent to speak about in regards to social issues such as how somebody who is only 1/4 won't experience the same hardships as one of their full blooded cousins, but does that make them any less Indian?
 
 As for the word PODIA. Dr Al has now stated he created that word to describe people that might descent from some gggg grandparent or whatever. In fact his exact words were

 "I came up with the term because some super sensitive people objected to the more commonly used term, thinblood. So since some object to this new one too, let's hear their suggesions besides "claims a g g g grandmother."

 If persons such as that were not enrolled, or not part of any Indian community then I would not even consider them Indian.

 So my objection is not pointing out that some people are not Indian even if they might have some distant ancestor, but was objecting to it being used on people that are part of a community. The first time I see that word used was not here, but rather somebody from here going on myspace and using it. They used that word to describe an EXPLOITER.  I felt they were insulting mixed people who lived as members of an Indian community or were trying to connect to their ancestry in a good way but using such a word to to describe an exploiter. The word has rubbed me the wrong way ever since, and stuck in my mind as just another word to divide people based on BQ, which is really neither scientific, or an Indigenous concept in the first place.

 However to keep things simple I will agree to retract my opposition to the word as long as I don't see it being used to describe people that should not have that word attached to them.

 That in mind I think we might have an understanding, and almost something to agree on here, yes?


Quote
A. ) NDN identity and culture is passed on indefintely no matter many generations a persons family has lived in a non native community and no matter how many generations of non native parents are included in this persons line of descent .

  Never said anything like that, and I don't know why you would even imply that I did. However it is not impossible for that to happen, however though is highly unlikely.


 
Quote
B.) An NDN identity is lost as soon as there is one generation of outmarriage or a persons family has not lived in a native community for a generation

 Nope don't believe that either.

Quote
C. )There is some sudden cut off point where a person has a parent who is fully NDN but their own identity is fully non NDN.

 I am assuming you mean if the child of this person is MIXED Right? In that regards if that cut off point is sudden as you say; I would say only sudden if that person decides to live as a Non Indian. To give an example I have a close friend who is Navajo, and sort of an adopted Grandmother to me. Her grandson is only 1/4. I asked her one day what she felt about BQ and how she thought people should be considered Indian in regards to it. She told me that it was not for her to decide, but up to the person. She said her grandson chose to be white and not Navajo, but if he wanted to be either one it was his choice.

 I have never known really know to many elders that would ever preach such a thing such as BQ, and rarely ever have heard of a spiritual leader doing it either. Most of the time what I do hear is "you know so and so has Indian blood, or is Indian, but they don't want to be or chose not to be Indian."


Quote
D. ) You are just repeating something you heard which sounded good, but now you think about it it doesn't really make sense and there is people somewhere in between being fully an NDN and fully not an NDN.

  As you have yourself noted I am "long winded," and so why would you even ask this? I have been very complex in what I have said as well, so I would not just be repeating anything because it once sounded good to me.

  I stand by my statement that you are either Indian or you or not. There is no being "part Indian." I don't know even what you mean by  somebody can even be "somewhere between."

 I am not trying to put people in little boxes based on this or that because they do this, and don't do that. That seems to be more along the lines of things I have read you say. I have long pointed out my view that history has happened and has had some huge effects, many of which have been bad.

 Everyone has different views of what is being Indian, and a lot of that is based on THEIR lives, and not the lives of the people they are trying to put in some box and define.  One tribe might only enroll you if you are from the rez and 3/4's, while another might enroll anyone who can find an ancestor on a roll.

 So in that scenario who is the real Indian and who is not, and who or what gives any of us to decide any of that past our own opinions

   I say part time Indians never are, but that is just my opinion based on what I think is a part time Indian.

 Then we have the problem that questions like this have so many more aspects to them because you are dealing with humans, and not subjects to put in boxes.
  


Quote
I don't understand who exactly you feel is being unfairly discriminated against by not being considered fully NDN and entitled to tribal membership ( enrollment ) by other NDN people .

 
 Honestly, and I think I have pointed this out before; enrollment versus non enrollment really isn't an issue with me. I view people as Indian regardless of both of those situations.

 Who is all of this hurting though?

 A friend of mine that was born and raised on her rez, and ran around in her diapers with nearly everyone changing them. She was always family to them all since it is a very small rez and she is related to most. However since she is more Mexican and other tribes by blood she just barely missed her BQ enrollment requirements, but none of that ever mattered until the casino came to town. Now her own cousins she grew up with act as if they don't even know, and that is probably from their own guilt knowing they were driving escalades when she was having a hard time just finding a job so she could eat.

 They all told her she was a "descendant." Funny thing is her own mother is enrolled, and as Native people don't we honor our ancestors and relations? How can you shun call your own family a "descendant?"

 You know she never really cared about the money, but I did hear her cry more then once about not being recognized by her own family. How she would go to powwows and dance, while the enrolled people would hide back in the corner and get drunk. How she would try to learn about her culture, and again those who acted like she didn't exist were off getting drunk and stoned.

 So you ask me these things as I am speaking, and who gets hurt; I can point out many examples of it, and how these things divide and hurt people just as bad as those who hate Natives have with racist government policies that were set up to divide and wipe people out.

 Division, Division, Division.....haven't we had enough of that yet, or do we need to keep finding new ways to do it?


Quote
So presumably it would be the people you claim are fully Native , who you feel are being unfairly unrecognized as NDN people. This would have to mean either you consider everyone of any Native descent , in a community with a few other people who are also of some Native descent, who wants to be considered an NDN or an NDN Nation to be fully NDN , or you have figured out some magic line that once a mixed blood person crosses it , they are no longer Native.


  Sorry man, but I have gone over this already and I don't understand why you ask me some of the same things over and over.


Quote
If you believe in a magic line, you are just doing the same thing you are complaining about tribal governments doing. Lots of people who end up on the wrong side of that line are going to tell you it's unfair. The only difference I can see is your own magic line might be different than the one decided by a particular tribal government.


 Well I am not in tribal government, and don't wish to be part of it, or in any government. If I was I probably could come up with a better way to do things then a lot of tribal governments, and I bet that you would probably agree with a lot of what I did.


Quote
You also seem believe calling people with no strong connection to a federally recognized Native community People of Distant Indian Ancestry AKA PODIAs is in some way condemning them to some sort of lesser experience .

 well actually going by your own definitions that is exactly what it is doing. Instead of looking at them as Indian or non Indian; you recognize that they have this alleged Indian ancestor, but that their experience as the Indian person they claim to be is in fact lesser then your's. since they don't meet up to your cultural standards of what is or is not Indian.


Quote
What exactly do you feel these people are unfairly missing out on?


 I suppose it would be respect and decency since that is what should be given to people that come in a good way or want to reconnect for the right reasons.

 Do I think they should be given enrollment or access to benefits? Not necessarily, and probably not because enrollment does not change who or what they are; so respect and decency would be just fine.


Quote
How exactly do you see people who are not able to enrolled in a federally recognized tribe as being deprived ? How do you imagine being enrolled, federally recognized, or just recognized by other Native people would improve this ?

 Given the number of people I know that are members of non recognized tribes in California..federal recognition means nothing in terms of how I view them. So it should not be any different on how I view anyone else who is unrecognized.

 Recognized by other natives......the harm of this is what exactly? There are unrecognized people you are friend with, correct?




Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #51 on: March 27, 2009, 08:07:33 pm »





Quote
1. Since I was the first one to use the term, I'll tell you that you are right in seeing it has nothing to do with BQ. It has to do with ties to a community, how distant those ties are.

 Well in having this discussion with Moma_porcupine I have came to fully understand this. As I told him, my objections to the word started when a person came to Myspace using the word to describe exploiters which I felt was insulting to mixed people and those who may be trying to reconnect in a good way. From that point on the word was one I found to be objectionable, because how I have seen it used elsewhere.


Quote
I came up with the term because some super sensitive people objected to the more commonly used term, thinblood. So since some object to this new one too, let's hear their suggesions besides "claims a g g g grandmother."

 I don't really have to much of an issue with the word anymore and understand why you use it. I don't think you made it up to belittle anyone per say. I have seen people use it for other reasons as I have said before, and that is where the objection came to it.

 It is a simpler way to decribe the whole gggg grandmother thing. I just don't think I will be using that word off of this site.

It has made for a nice discussion with Moma_porcupine that I no loner wish to continue because I think it will give us both a headache if we do lol.

Me personally.....I can't see myself using it.

Quote
2. I hesitate to bring up side issues too much, but briefly....Your friend that claimed some mythical "right" to be anonymous, yet outed herself. She posted her own name and email address on her profile for all to see. The blame is entirely hers. And when someone joins and engages in some fairly low personal smears and racist insults in their very first post, they should not be able to hide behind being anonymous.

 Well your site does give a person options to hide such info from common members, but not yourself. She says she had it set to private so only those who had right to see (you) could see. Of course you can say she did not, and there is no way I can prove otherwise myself.

 The question is was it something you really needed to do?




Offline Diana

  • Posts: 421
  • I Love YaBB 2!
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #52 on: March 27, 2009, 08:46:57 pm »
I'm only going to say this once, and this is MY opinion only. The more these people like Rattlebone, Koyateh and those other names I can't remember right now, talk and post the more I'm convinced YOU'RE not Indian. You people are exhausting and your idea's of what's Indian or not are ridicules. You have no clue as to how real Federally Recognized Tribes actually operate. I think everyone here has been really patient and my hats off to you all.


Lim Lemtsh


Diana

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #53 on: March 27, 2009, 09:27:02 pm »
bieing indian and being a federallly recognized indian from a federally recognized tribe are two different things, and this diffeerence of these two things are part of what i am talking about. You don't , we don't , have to be federally recognized when it comes to who is indian or not. Ask yourself this, "what is the purpose of Federal Recognition?" It does have a specific purpose. It has to do with contract treaties made between the U.S. govt and SPECIFIC TRIBES. I even dare to say, specific tribal members as their is even issues with who had the tribal right to represent the tribe at the signing of these documents. That is an inner tribal matter though.
  Another question comes in " SHOULD treaties be the only factor in Federally recognizing ANY nation or tribe or PEOPLE?" that is a whole seperate issue entirely, but sometimes people really are talking about that as well. It comes down to a matter of respect and sovereignty, self dignity. With this question, it isn't even about land or benefits, just mere respect and consideration.

The more people talk here or have opinions on issues we all care about shouldn't be a measure of who's indian or not. As natives spread across all parts of these americas, we each have our own experiences and realities. ALL different. It only makes sense that our views will also be different.

The reality of how federally tribes really operate? You mean like reality? Depends on what part of the reality we want to look at. There's always going to be pros and cons about it. None of our realities are all about dancing in daisies with drums beating and hawks flying free.

I'm only going to say this once, and this is MY opinion only. The more these people like Rattlebone, Koyateh and those other names I can't remember right now, talk and post the more I'm convinced YOU'RE not Indian. You people are exhausting and your idea's of what's Indian or not are ridicules. You have no clue as to how real Federally Recognized Tribes actually operate. I think everyone here has been really patient and my hats off to you all.

Lim Lemtsh
Diana


Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #54 on: March 27, 2009, 09:45:05 pm »
Quote
One of my cousins is working on this now.  There is an honor question with me.  My claim while I believe is valid is so far back and I am so diluted that I am not sure that it would be an honorable course to take.


LittleOldMan, you seem to be confusing the issue of Political Citizenship with BQ, which is a common mistake Non-Cherokees make all the time. 

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #55 on: March 27, 2009, 10:55:14 pm »
What are you purposing then to allow these people to create their our tribe?

well thats the other problem . and its part of the problem i was getting at. The problem is there. there is more than one contributing factor. What do you do then? if everyone had the answer to that , it would have been done already maybe. Or maybe so far no one really wants to deal with it.
 "what do we do or what do the people do who are real, ( real?) who find themselves without a tribe?" WE can't allow or disallow them to start a new tribe. If they are not part of OUR tribe  or no longer a re part of our tribe or distant , then what do we have to say about it at all?
Maybe its more a fear of "what will happen to those of US who ARE federally recognized with treaties , IF new tribes are created?"
maybe its a personal matter, like fear, and greed, and control, self-preservation, etc.
  Well maybe we should answer that, what if new tribes ( however they come to be ) are created and given whatever form of recognition? What or how do you think you will be affected by this? Maybe the answers to this are really where the issues are rooted.

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #56 on: March 27, 2009, 11:56:30 pm »
Quote
Maybe its more a fear of "what will happen to those of US who ARE federally recognized with treaties , IF new tribes are created?"
maybe it’s a personal matter, like fear, and greed, and control, self-preservation, etc.
Well maybe we should answer that, what if new tribes ( however they come to be ) are created and given whatever form of recognition? What or how do you think you will be affected by this? Maybe the answers to this are really where the issues are rooted.


I think the creation of new soverign Tribes does create a host of problems.  My Tribe has this problem, and it creates the issue of "which are the Authentic Tribes and which are not?"  Are the over 200 Cherokee Tribes all Authentic?  And is my tribe just one of many? 


Koyoteh for an analogy, think for example of immigrants from Ireland, that immigrated in the past, to the US and to other parts of Europe, ( some went to England ).  Some of these people that left Ireland have grandchildren who were not born in Ireland.  ( And in some cases their grandchildren can claim citizenship in Ireland based of this Grandparent )

Some can’t claim this citizenship for certain reasons while others can.  It’s up to the political entity of Ireland to decide this. Meaning the country ( Ireland) located in Europe.   

So the Irish immigrants to England and the US for example, that can’t claim this citizenship in Ireland, doesn’t mean that they aren’t Irish, it just means they aren’t citizens of the country ( Ireland )  But the people of Irish decent in America and England can’t be considered a separate legal entity of people either.  Yeah, they have individual sovereignly like everyone else, and no one can tell them how they can or can’t identify, or what they can and can’t do, or how they want to practice their Irish Culture ( which may have changed). 

That’s all their business.  I don’t think anyone has the right to say otherwise.  But at the same time, they can’t just go off and open up an Irish Embassy or something like that in NY or in London.   And these people can’t represent Ireland to other countries in Europe.   etc. They now have citizenship in other Nations.  In this case they are citizens of the US and Great Britain. Some Irish left because of the Potato Famine, so it wasn’t their fault they left.  They were just hungry.  But at some point in time they left their nation and integrated politically and culturally elsewhere.   

I guess it all comes down to how you view the word “Tribe”?   For me, it means a sovereign entity or Nation.  Maybe all Nations aren’t as big as others, but to me, a Tribe means a sovereign people.

If your definition Koyoteh of Tribe means a people of a shared and commen heritage that are distinct and decide to band together in some way.  Then, I agree with that.  And wherever you are now, you should have the right to honor and practice your heritage however you like. I think that’s all good.  In another post, I think you said that “your people might be better off without recognition” if I remember right.  So I think your just talking about being recognized, in the sense of  having the right to practice your culture, as opposed to the legal rights I mentioned above?  I think it boils down to what does the word "Tribe" mean to you? 

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #57 on: March 28, 2009, 12:54:54 am »
Just a side note.  If anyone really wants to understand where Koyoteh is coming from, then they need to understand the concept of Aztlan.  Because it ties into a lot of what he is talking about in regards to Tribes, Soverignty and the concept of Native People in the Americas.  That was went over in debt in another thread. 

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #58 on: March 28, 2009, 01:34:56 am »
in your own words this is kinda what I am saying too.
 Legalities, though , I think is where all the arguments actually come in. While one of us says , it shouldn't be that way , or its not right, or this is the way it should be , some may be talking about mere sovereignty and true freedom and and whats rigtht and wrong. WHile others are talking from the perspective of legality and legal authority and who they made contracts with. yes both have things to do with sovereignty , but from a whole different standpoint. So from my standpoint, for the record of being clear, I am speaking not from the standpoint of legality and the laws of the authority who made them. I speak from the standpoint of what shoulda, coulda, woulda, and actually can be if..our 'laws'. Our laws don't have much strength though, I do recognize that. A lot of us don't even have the strength to actually make our own laws let alone enforce them. Legal tribes don't really make their own laws, the laws have been made for them and / or okayed by a higher authority. 

when we crisscross specific tribal and federal laws with what true sovereignty is and our own tribes real laws , then we get a lot of misunderstandings.

Quote
I think the creation of new soverign Tribes does create a host of problems.  My Tribe has this problem, and it creates the issue of "which are the Authentic Tribes and which are not?"  Are the over 200 Cherokee Tribes all Authentic?  And is my tribe just one of many? 
Koyoteh for an analogy, think for example of immigrants from Ireland, that immigrated in the past, to the US and to other parts of Europe, ( some went to England ).  Some of these people that left Ireland have grandchildren who were not born in Ireland.  ( And in some cases their grandchildren can claim citizenship in Ireland based of this Grandparent )
Some can’t claim this citizenship for certain reasons while others can.  It’s up to the political entity of Ireland to decide this. Meaning the country ( Ireland) located in Europe.   
So the Irish immigrants to England and the US for example, that can’t claim this citizenship in Ireland, doesn’t mean that they aren’t Irish, it just means they aren’t citizens of the country ( Ireland )  But the people of Irish decent in America and England can’t be considered a separate legal entity of people either.  Yeah, they have individual sovereignly like everyone else, and no one can tell them how they can or can’t identify, or what they can and can’t do, or how they want to practice their Irish Culture ( which may have changed). 
That’s all their business.  I don’t think anyone has the right to say otherwise. 

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
« Reply #59 on: March 28, 2009, 01:39:57 am »
 
Quote
That’s all their business.  I don’t think anyone has the right to say otherwise.  But at the same time, they can’t just go off and open up an Irish Embassy or something like that in NY or in London.   And these people can’t represent Ireland to other countries in Europe.   etc. They now have citizenship in other Nations.  In this case they are citizens of the US and Great Britain. Some Irish left because of the Potato Famine, so it wasn’t their fault they left.  They were just hungry.  But at some point in time they left their nation and integrated politically and culturally elsewhere.   
i undestand and maybe even agree with most of this, but except for one part, kind of . You didn't really say it. But I didn't really say what you say here either.
An embassy is one thing. Like you say no one can just say they represent what they do not. We can't even do that within our own tribes. Or any organization of any kind.
BUt, theoretically, ANYONE can go off and inhabit a place (hopefully morally an uninhabited place) and start their own nation/country. They can even get U.N. recognition if they want it.