NAFPS Forum

Odds and Ends => Etcetera => Topic started by: koyoteh on March 19, 2009, 05:12:11 am

Title: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 19, 2009, 05:12:11 am
If a nation you claim to be from doesn't claim you, thats supposed to make you not indian anymore? Thats just crazy talk. Thats Wasichu Talk.  Actually its the wasichus strategy of making us obsolete that this idea came from. All the BIA has to do is get the tribe to kick you out and BAM! you ain't indian no more and the govt no longer has to honor you. One less indian to worry about , until all the natives are gone. Of course they will only keep the ones that play their BIA game. Politics . Thats all it is. They've been doing that for years. Getting the natives to do it to themselves.

Shit , some nations aren't even recognized. So there goes a whole nation of people GONE ! BAM ! NONEXISTENT!

In a fit of anger any native with authority can kick you out. So then you aint native no more? Thats ridiculous. You may not be a member of that tribe, but that don't mean you aint native. Even then , in the old days, a kicked out member would go on and start his own family, until large enough to be a whole nutha nation. What then? IF we still have the rights to kick people out and decide who's a member of our tribe, then shouldn't we also have the right to start a new one?

Blood doesn't leave the body just cause someone kicks you out.

OR better yet, how about if someone decides the tribe sucks and leaves on their own?


Now I understand that our peoples have always had this issue since time began , but still. If we are going to say things like this, then lets look at the WHOLE picture, not just the parts that are convenient for us at the moment.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: mamaduck33 on March 19, 2009, 05:52:28 am
If a nation you claim to be from doesn't claim you, thats supposed to make you not indian anymore? Thats just crazy talk. Thats Wasichu Talk.  Actually its the wasichus strategy of making us obsolete that this idea came from. All the BIA has to do is get the tribe to kick you out and BAM! you ain't indian no more and the govt no longer has to honor you. One less indian to worry about , until all the natives are gone. Of course they will only keep the ones that play their BIA game. Politics . Thats all it is. They've been doing that for years. Getting the natives to do it to themselves.

Shit , some nations aren't even recognized. So there goes a whole nation of people GONE ! BAM ! NONEXISTENT!

In a fit of anger any native with authority can kick you out. So then you aint native no more? Thats ridiculous. You may not be a member of that tribe, but that don't mean you aint native. Even then , in the old days, a kicked out member would go on and start his own family, until large enough to be a whole nutha nation. What then? IF we still have the rights to kick people out and decide who's a member of our tribe, then shouldn't we also have the right to start a new one?

Blood doesn't leave the body just cause someone kicks you out.

OR better yet, how about if someone decides the tribe sucks and leaves on their own?


Now I understand that our peoples have always had this issue since time began , but still. If we are going to say things like this, then lets look at the WHOLE picture, not just the parts that are convenient for us at the moment.

Yep.  Lots of villages her in So Cal that are documented but still not federally recognized.  People have been telling them forever that they are not ndn.  If they are not....what are they?  They don't suddenly become Chinese, African, Euro or some other ethnicity...they still are what they are regardless of what the government or tribe says.

the family of 100 who was in a dispute with the chiefs family and got disenrolled because their ggg grandmother was born south of the boarder...regardless that she was still from the same tribe that was split in half before the US put up those boarders and lived here before they were put up, and married to a man from her own tribe on this side of the boarder....suddenly are no longer native?  I don't think so.

Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Laurel on March 19, 2009, 10:00:20 am
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?

Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Rattlebone on March 19, 2009, 09:14:40 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?



 I have varying degrees of both agreement and disagreement with the things you are saying here.


Quote
   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."

  I don't know where you are from or what you know about natives, but I live in an area that has had lots of dis enrollments. I have heard of people saying to those that have been dis enrolled, and read it in the paper where still existing tribal members have said point blank "you are not Indian anymore."

 I could be wrong, but I also believe to the legal definition of an Indian in the United States "is to be a member of a federally recognized tribe, or community." Of course I think even in regards to the word "community," it might mean some sort of federal recognition as well. I say this because I doubt anyone who had some "community status" would be allowed to sell art designated as "Indian art" without being in violation of that law that states you must be a member of a federally recognized tribe to have artwork designated as such. The same would probably be true in regards to possession of things like Peyote or feathers.

 Also there are thousands upon thousand of Indians in the United States that in the legal sense would not be seen as Indian once they enter the United States.  That is because Indians are not a minority in the United states like other groups of people may be, but rather a political class.

 You have entire groups of people and tribes that were declared colored or black by states on the east coast when they were not black at all. I know of many who have descendants who are neither wanna be's or exploiters who still suffering from that.

Quote
  "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?"


  I do get your  point in this, but I think your analogy is a bit off. Sure if this condition was true you would still look white, but probably still looked mixed. However white and black are neither cultures or nations. They are just skin color based on a person's dominate genes. Some tribes have no BQ cut off points so you have people that look totally white or black in the membership. Now this might make them fall into this whole social class I read about on this board called a "podia" by having low blood and distant relations, but that would still be no indication if they knew the culture of their tribe and actually participated in it or not.

 Culture is something you learn or are raised in. It is not dictated by dominate or recessive genes somebody has in their DNA.

 
Quote
"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"

  So if a native marries a non native it is absolutely a fact that the native parent won't pass down the culture to the child? Is it absolutely impossible that people will not pass down culture regardless of racial mixing?

 The Jews have managed to do just that in the face of diaspora, and taking in converts, and have done so for thousands of years.

 I am no advocate of telling natives to go out and just marry anyone. However I will not preach racial purity to anyone and tell them who they can or can not love. I am an advocate of making the best effort to continue native culture, and pass it down so that our people can live on regardless of inter marriage and all other obstacles.

  I do think it is fine for you or anyone to learn the things you have and be involved the fight against exploiters, but at the same time I think it's wrong of you to get involved in a discussion about who is and is not native when the case of exploitation is not an issue when you are in no way native yourself.

 I would also point out that our people are Nations that have existed long before non Indians came here. We have mixed tribally forever, and "racially" since other people came to our shores. I do not think any person that is not part of any native community should be involved in saying who is native and who is not.

 Should the United States go back to denying who has civil rights and who does not based on such ridiculous things such as "race?" You know the answer to that, and I think it is wrong for you to preach the concept of BQ here.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Laurel on March 19, 2009, 09:51:40 pm
Rattlebone, I defer to your superior knowledge.  I didn't mean to discuss disenrollments, and I certainly didn't mean to make light of them.

What I meant to get at is that I always hear the "Who are you to say I'm not an Indian?" things coming from people who have been white all their lives but suddenly want to claim their Native heritage without being "inconvenienced" by integrating themselves into that culture.  I meant communicate what you said:  "Culture is something you learn or are raised in. It is not dictated by dominate or recessive genes somebody has in their DNA."

I don't mean to say people won't pass down their culture regardless of whom they marry.  I hope they do.  But again, what I've heard about by people who don't like the blood quantum laws (i don't really have an opinion on them since, as you say, I'm not Native) is that they make it easy for the people who live on reservations and really need help to not get it because the people who barely meet blood quantum but haven't been raised in the culture can apply for grants, scholarships, whatever.  I did not mean to preach racial purity at all.

I agree one hundred per cent that it's not and never has been up to me to say who's Native and who isn't.  I apologize for offending, and I'll back out of the conversation now and leave it to Natives.

ETA--thanks for pointing out to me that (even if I were qualified to write about it) what I meant is not what I typed.  I'd hate to have anyone thinking I was advocating for racial purity.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Moma_porcupine on March 19, 2009, 11:42:51 pm
Obviously if someone is disenrolled from their tribe because someone wants their share of tribal resources , most people would agree that the person is still as Native as their relatives of the same family background, who are still enrolled. 

Sure there is exceptions to every generality. Like it's generally bad to have a car accident, but if you were driving home to commit suicide, and you have a car crash and only break your leg and change your mind, having a car accident is a good thing...

And even though jumping off a cliff is generally very painful, if people are sitting in a hang glider and they jump off a cliff and the air currents are right , jumping off a cliff can be a lot of fun...

But all these arguments picking a few extreme contrary examples to what is generaly true, and to try and  diminish the credibility of what almost always IS true on the basis of a few exceptions seems to be a dishonest debating tactic.

In most situations it is reasonable to expect that a person claiming to be NDN needs to be recognized by a Native community that has retained it's identity strongly enough to be federally recognized. It seems pretty obvious to me that the alternative - that anyone with the possibility of some distant ancestry , who feels like declaring themself an NDN who can find a few people to support this declaration , should have a right to do so - would seriously undermine that continued existence of true indigenous communities and the cultures they maintain.

When arguments like this are made it seem the people making it are either incredibly selfish and short sighted or they have a conscious agenda that would turn Native identity and soverienty into a blurry and contentious sense of entitlement that could be claimed by pretty much 1/2 the people living in North America.

I notice almost 95% of Rattlebones posts seem to be pushing people to accept anyone who wants to claim they are NDN , no matter how distant their connection to this is , and in at least one other thread i recall Rattlebone was advocating for this even if it's not documented . I guess there is a few people who have substantial native blood who can't document this, but the recent mtDNA evidence is that the large majority of people in North America with a family story that gr grandma was an NDN were told wrong ... ( see the thread on DNA in ect for more info on that )

So, it sounds like if Rattlebone had their way, and anyone with a story should be considered NDN that would mean that about 90% of these new NDNs would in reality be entirely non native and the rest could be people with a gr gr gr gr grandma back there somewhere....

So I have some practical questions for you who are making these arguements on behalf of PODIAs  - and who don't agree that people claiming to be NDN should be recognized as such by a federally recognized native community  ,especially for those who seem to be advocating that PODIAs have a right to be considered as equal to indigenous Nations ...   (seems to be one of Rattlebones favorite subjects...)

1. Do you think everybody who feels like being an NDN should be able to be one?

2. If not where exactly do you draw the line?

3. Who in the group of people that will result from however you think this should be defined,  will have the right to decide how the few limited physical resources which still belong to the indigenous people will be distributed?

4. Who will decide who has this right?

5. Who in the group of people that would result from however you think this should be define will have the right to decide how cultural traditions are maintained and protected?

6. Who will decide who has this right?

7. Who in this group of people that would result from however you think this should be decided would have the right to represent their Nation and negotiate on behalf of their Nation with other Nations ?

8. Who will decide who has this right?

These are very important questions and if what you seem to be advocating for was to come to pass they would need to be answered. So i am very curious how you see this practically working. And if it can't practically work. I am very curious why you are advocating this?

Rattlebone, one thing I want to say is even though I strongly disagree with your position in most of the arguments you present, a couple times I've really learned something from something you've said and found your point of veiw to be really unique and insightful. Also I've often appreciated that you always seem to stay polite , even to some extremely aggravating people.

Yup...and i still strongly disagree with most of what you post ...   ;D
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: bls926 on March 20, 2009, 12:40:09 am
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. 
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 20, 2009, 01:40:53 am
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?



implied? its what I meant not what I said? just say what you mean then is what people should do. We can only comment on what is said, not what is not said or "implied". This is the old " I can't read your mind" thing that a lot of people tell their parnters.

but still adding the never were part, its still ridiculous. Too much human faults are involved in this stuff. There are plenty of natives who people say "never were" out there. they may be the worst of the bunch and no one wants them, but they are still natives. They may be screwy in the heads , but they are still natives. They may even have sold out, or be traiterous , but they are still natives. For these faults of their many will not claim them and say they never were.

This doesn't include the fakes. But thats the problem right? seperatating the easy ones to identify from the ones that are more complicated to see.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 20, 2009, 01:47:33 am
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. 

but dis enrollments are the prime example of all of this. It is something that is happening right now , and is real.

Tribes do and should maintain sovereignty and therefore have the same right as any nation to decide who is a member and who isn't right? but mix that with human faults and weaknesses and we get some craziness involved as well. even going so far to discredit people and even to discredit their origins is waht is taking place right now.

This is why people need to be more careful with the words they choose, and say what they mean, and not have the rest try to read the writers minds .

So the tribe maintains sovereignty, lets say and kicks people out, or doesn't even claim them, what to do with these people now?
Officially they no longer are natives, even are in danger of being blacklisted as fakes and frauds wherever they go. But even if they are not liked , is this morally right?
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Laurel on March 20, 2009, 02:15:48 am
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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: bls926 on March 20, 2009, 02:21:51 am
But all these arguments picking a few extreme contrary examples to what is generaly true, and to try and  diminish the credibility of what almost always IS true on the basis of a few exceptions seems to be a dishonest debating tactic.

In most situations it is reasonable to expect that a person claiming to be NDN needs to be recognized by a Native community that has retained it's identity strongly enough to be federally recognized. It seems pretty obvious to me that the alternative - that anyone with the possibility of some distant ancestry , who feels like declaring themself an NDN who can find a few people to support this declaration , should have a right to do so - would seriously undermine that continued existence of true indigenous communities and the cultures they maintain.

When arguments like this are made it seem the people making it are either incredibly selfish and short sighted or they have a conscious agenda that would turn Native identity and soverienty into a blurry and contentious sense of entitlement that could be claimed by pretty much 1/2 the people living in North America.



This is what most people don't understand.

Selfish and self-centered would be putting it mildly.


Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: earthw7 on March 20, 2009, 05:40:07 am
1. Do you think everybody who feels like being an NDN should be able to be one?
NO! then we would have every quake in the country trying to be native


2. If not where exactly do you draw the line?
I am sorry but i draw the line at 1/4 BQ, must have one or more parent enrolled in the tribal nation or one or more grandparents

3. Who in the group of people that will result from however you think this should be defined,  will have the right to decide how the few limited physical resources which still belong to the indigenous people will be distributed?

it is our way to only have the people who live within  the reservation boundaries have our resource and of course you enrollment papers.

4. Who will decide who has this right?
the tribe nation

5. Who in the group of people that would result from however you think this should be define will have the right to decide how cultural traditions are maintained and protected?
the elders

6. Who will decide who has this right?
the elders

7. Who in this group of people that would result from however you think this should be decided would have the right to represent their Nation and negotiate on behalf of their Nation with other Nations ?

the tribal nations only

8. Who will decide who has this right?
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Rattlebone on March 20, 2009, 05:36:10 pm



oops hit the post button instead of preview...my appologies.
 
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 20, 2009, 06:07:19 pm
sorry but even the elders can't do that.

good conscious elders will tell you that the way it should be , but really can't be .

times have changed.

see all a bad person has to do is wait to get old and become an elder, and then let all hell break loose.

and they have done this. This sucks as it leaves us all distrusting each other, and SOME elders, but just by distrusting some elders , it leaves us distrusting some of our old ways. Making us feel a little guilt and confusing. The bad guys then take advantage of this, and the distrust just grows.

People can say that they ain't real elders then. Well it doesn't matter , the damage gets done.
Cause 'young' people non elders aren't "supposed" to decide anything, only "elders" can. So they let the bad elders get away with a lot.

1. Do you think everybody who feels like being an NDN should be able to be one?
NO! then we would have every quake in the country trying to be native


2. If not where exactly do you draw the line?
I am sorry but i draw the line at 1/4 BQ, must have one or more parent enrolled in the tribal nation or one or more grandparents

3. Who in the group of people that will result from however you think this should be defined,  will have the right to decide how the few limited physical resources which still belong to the indigenous people will be distributed?

it is our way to only have the people who live within  the reservation boundaries have our resource and of course you enrollment papers.

4. Who will decide who has this right?
the tribe nation

5. Who in the group of people that would result from however you think this should be define will have the right to decide how cultural traditions are maintained and protected?
the elders

6. Who will decide who has this right?
the elders

7. Who in this group of people that would result from however you think this should be decided would have the right to represent their Nation and negotiate on behalf of their Nation with other Nations ?

the tribal nations only

8. Who will decide who has this right?

Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Rattlebone on March 20, 2009, 08:04:03 pm
Obviously if someone is disenrolled from their tribe because someone wants their share of tribal resources , most people would agree that the person is still as Native as their relatives of the same family background, who are still enrolled. 


 


 
Quote
"Rattlebone, one thing I want to say is even though I strongly disagree with your position in most of the arguments you present, a couple times I've really learned something from something you've said and found your point of veiw to be really unique and insightful. Also I've often appreciated that you always seem to stay polite , even to some extremely aggravating people."

 Well I would like to thank you for these words. In a lot of the things I say on boards like these when I am staying respectful comes from some of the things I have learned from elders that I know in the Indian community I am part of out here. Even in the case of that, of course a great deal of that may come from my own thoughts on things I have been told and my interpretation of them and how those thoughts have grown and evolved from those conversations. Plus being that this is written words and not a face to face conversation, I am sure a lot of what I try and say gets lost here just as it does for everyone else.

 The times when I get technical on people both here and other places probably comes knowing a few native educators in my life, and the things I have learned from them as well. I can say I was blessed to be able to study under Wendy Rose in my life as well, and she had a huge influence on my life and thinking. I could say the same about all of the other native writers that I loved since a child, such as Deloria.

 I try and use those things I have learned from real life experience, family stories, and teachings from native elders and even native friends that I have been blessed to have in my life. I try my best to use those things along side of the "book education" and find a way to use them together to best present my ideas and thoughts. This is especially true when I find myself arguing with non Natives when I try to convince them of the things about us that are not true, and the hatred against us the United States and other colonial powers have created.

Of course this does not mean people such as yourself, or anyone else will agree with me on a lot of things regardless. Still I will make sure to point out that I do speak from a position of actually being involved in a native community, and one of education even if I do lack a degree. I did not finish college and at one time was trying to get a degree in journalism along side of Native American studies...wanted to work for something like Native People's magazine. That was my dream at least at one time. I made the mistake of working up the ladder at my place of employment during those days, and of course that was a huge mistake.

 I came into this site a year ago, and did so with respect. I came in here and did so in a good way, and at one time liked the people here, and grew to like Dr. Al and the work he was doing here.

 In recent times as you know I have been accused, and I feel demonized for pointing a few things out that I felt should be taken into consideration here. The result was that I have been accused of being a member of the EMC, which I am not and never was. I live in the state of California, and have never in my life set foot in the state of Colorado. I didn't even object to the EMC being investigated, but did object to a few of the parties being involved in it.

 I will say that I do strongly hate anything new age, just as I do new agers. Even a few of my detractors present in this site can tell you how badly I attack and flame those people on other sites. I am often rude to them in person as well, though I have never came across an actual exploiter in my life in my area. One of the elders used to tell me about one once, and that exploiter was the reason that elder would make anyone who came to sweat with him promise to do so for five years so that he could make sure he had time to teach them well before they went off and started doing bad things, and claiming that they had learned from him.

 The only money that has passed through my hands in Indian country has often times been from my own  pocket by way of donations to some committee's I have worked on putting together powwows, buying things from federal recognized native artisans, and the gas money helping a local activist take at risk native children to powwows/native social events. None of this was ever a lot of money as I don't have a lot, nor was it huge amounts of time, but it has always been me trying to do what little I can, and do it the best that I can. Of course I am still young, and do have plans to hopefully do a lot more in my life for the native community and give back to it all that I have received, especially by way of the love and friendship I have always received in the native community. I do credit a few elders I have known in my life for saving my life, and so the debt I think I owe to the native community is more then I could ever probably repay in my lifetime.
 

So I do thank you once again for your kind words here, and I do think as I have said recently in another thread, that I know I could both contribute to and learn from the people on this site. However the things said to me and about me lately tell me that I am no longer wanted here, and I should probably just resign from here. It has also turned my once admiration for a number of people here to disdain and now sharp criticism of them. Considering that things I have been falsely accused, of can you blame me?

Quote
  "Obviously if someone is dis enrolled from their tribe because someone wants their share of tribal resources , most people would agree that the person is still as Native as their relatives of the same family background, who are still enrolled."

 yea maybe so, but I could probably show examples of that not being true. I know of people who have been dis enrolled over tribal politics and are treated by many like they do not exist. I live in California so I see these things happen often, and have friends that are a victim of it. So I don't speak from a hypothetical point of view, or stories in second person, but rather from seeing and hearing with with my own eyes and ears.

Quote
  "In most situations it is reasonable to expect that a person claiming to be NDN needs to be recognized by a Native community that has retained it's identity strongly enough to be federally recognized"

 I do agree with you for the most part here. However, living in California I know of many people and tribal bands that are made up of nearly full blooded and full blooded people who are not recognized by the federal government. Maybe they will be recognized some day, and maybe they won't. Still that leads me to not view federal acknowledgment of a tribe, or federal acknowledgment period as the end all be all standard and definition of who is and who is not native.

 I am not against it either of course, but I do view the federal government and some of it's actions in regards to recognition of both individuals and tribal groups all over the United States to sometimes be dubious and much like a fox being put in charge of guarding a hen house.

 Also I am told Educated Indian himself is not enrolled, and I do not mean that as a slight or insult against him. It might not even be true, I really don't know. If it is true, then why would people here be using that as an absolute definition if it is not even true of the person that takes the lead here?


Quote
  "It seems pretty obvious to me that the alternative - that anyone with the possibility of some distant ancestry , who feels like declaring themself an NDN who can find a few people to support this declaration , should have a right to do so - would seriously undermine that continued existence of true indigenous communities and the cultures they maintain."


  I am not sure what you are talking about here, unless you mean in regards to enrollment and tribal sovereignty?

  I do agree with you that anyone should NOT be able to just declare themselves Indian and become enrolled without proof.

  Of course in regards to what you call a PODIA person getting enrolled being a harm to a tribal existence, I really don't know. I can point out though that it happens every day in Oklahoma on a large scale since many eastern Oklahoma tribes including my own have open enrollment to anyone who can prove an ancestor on the Dawes roll. So you do literally have people that probably found out they were Indian the other day getting enrolled. Of course there are some checks and balances to that, but it hasn't harmed any of those nations as far as I can tell. I have heard that former Chief Wilma Mankiller said it was being done for political reasons so that these people being enrolled could sort of a political protection for the full blood minority. If you want I could probably dig up her actual words and source that.

 Of course I am not saying I agree with open enrollment in such a way as it is being done. I think these people should be forced by whatever tribe they are trying to get enrolled in, to learn the history and culture of it however that tribal nation see's fit for them to do so. I think these people should also pay into that system so not to be a burden to the tribe that way. It would most likely discourage those who are coming for bad reasons.....

 So yes I do not like "paper Indians" who are Indian on paper and nothing more.

 Another thing to keep in mind, is that tribal governments are not always a representative of the tribes culture or traditional people. Most often they are not, and are just as often to be in conflict with it's tribal members. That means "paper Indians" won't be found around anything traditional as they won't be welcome, and probably would not be interested anyhow. At the same time I know of so called PODIA's and even non Indians that have came into a community and been allowed into ceremony. Sure it is rare, but it happens and bad things do not come from it. They can of course, but doesn't mean bad things will come. That is the decision of the elders and community of course, and not that of a tribal government.


Quote
  "When arguments like this are made it seem the people making it are either incredibly selfish and short sighted or they have a conscious agenda that would turn Native identity and soverienty into a blurry and contentious sense of entitlement that could be claimed by pretty much 1/2 the people living in North America."


 Honestly I don't think anyone here is making the argument in such a way as you think they are. I know I certainly am not, and you have misunderstood everything I have said thus far. I don't even think the OP of this thread was really thinking of sovereignty when he made this post. He is not even a person who comes from a federally recognized people in the United States, and in fact is a Mexica person.

 At the same time I know he was most likely not making a political statement, or one that would support exploitation or cultural misappropriation in any way.

 I do know he was troubled by the term PODIA, and most likely views it as a way some are preventing others from learning and becoming what maybe they should be regardless of status or BQ. Doing so without doing harm to any native community or being a threat to sovereignty either.

 I know even you have said calling someone a PODIA is not meant to be such a thing, but in a world where we have hatred based on BQ, hatred for a person being rez or urban, hatred for being mixed vs full; I know he is seeing it as just another acronym or word added to the rest that cause division and internal colonization and hatred.

 I don't see it has being selfish or short sighted at all. If anything it is very much the opposite, as the argument presented is not one in reality that believes anyone is entitled to anything; what it is is questioning if such a word and thought process is wrongly pushing people out without knowing where their heart it, and creating yet another divisive word.

  To me BQ is short sighted because such a term, and using it to push out does not take into consideration that culture and ways can be passed down regardless of such a thing as BQ. If I was a person who watched my children out marry to non natives, and then my grandchildren do the same; it would be short sited of me to think that somehow I could not make sure that ways, language, and culture could still be passed down.

 It is short sighted on a larger scale to do that to entire groups of people, it was genocidal when the United States was doing it as official policy, and now it's auto termination by way of eternal colonization when those such as Blood Qauntum Nazi's enforce this on others and preach about ethnic purity. This is especially true when natives are something like 70% more likely to marry a non native then a native.

 Does myself or the OP of this thread believe that we should just accept any twink or Indian at heart person that claims some ggggg grandmother as Indian? I know I absolutely do not think so, and I know he most likely does not either.

 I believe he thinks we should find ways of being more accepting of people if they come and do no harm, and not label them as PODIA's if they do, and add yet another divisive word and thought.


 
Quote
"I notice almost 95% of Rattlebones posts seem to be pushing people to accept anyone who wants to claim they are NDN , no matter how distant their connection to this is"

  LOL this statement sure shows how must you just don't know me. Ask anyone here that knows me from other sites including Mr Koyoteh how bad I can be towards people that come into other sites that we are both members of and claim some gggg grandmother princess, or say they are Indian at heart.

 Matter of fact make sure to go into the EMC thread and notice how I pointed out who he is, and how I felt that should be taken into account as to why I did not trust him.

  I think however my points in regard to this topic, and how you are wrong about this statement of me I have said above many times in other ways.

 Even in my life off of the internet I am not that accepting as you say. I was threatened with being turned in for harassment for continuing to challenge a white man from saying he was Native and even from my own people. Not only had I never seen him around in my community, I had never heard of him, and he was claiming to be a Choctaw while telling people he had done things that sounded to me like they were Lakota. Nearly the same thing happened on another occasion when a person started claiming to be Chumash, and I challenged him as well.

 So my friend you have me very wrong in this regards to how I think.

 
Quote
"and in at least one other thread i recall Rattlebone was advocating for this even if it's not documented"

  Documented by whom exactly? Does this documentation have to come from the fox who guards the hen house?

 Do you know how many people I know that are clearly Indian, seen as such, and are welcomed into the homes of Indian people I know that are not documented enough to meet the requirements by the Feds? I know a man whom I believe is from the Salinan people that once lived where the city of San Francisco now stands. The United States government says his people don't exist anymore, and I don't know what culture he follows if any, but he is what he says he is regardless. I do know that though he looks mixed, but you can tell he is very much the Indian man he claims to be.

  I think the problem that many of you on this site fall into is that you hold the definition of being Indian based on something that was prior to contact it seems, and prior to all the things contact with non Indians has caused. The man I know is the Indian man he claims to be, and he is a good man. I don't need any documentation to see and know that, and nor do I think I should have to see such a thing.


So documentation as you put it, is not always absolute.

Quote

"So, it sounds like if Rattlebone had their way, and anyone with a story should be considered NDN that would mean that about 90% of these new NDNs would in reality be entirely non native and the rest could be people with a gr gr gr gr grandma back there somewhere...."

 Nope, and it sounds to me like you are making assumptions about me based on things I have said that you don't understand.

 I think though that I have pointed this out many times already now in this post.


 
Quote
"So I have some practical questions for you who are making these arguements on behalf of PODIAs"


  I have one for you as well.

 1.) What tribe are you and Dr. Al from, and are either of you enrolled?
 
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Rattlebone 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.

Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Rattlebone 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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: earthw7 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
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh 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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Moma_porcupine 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
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh 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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh 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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Rattlebone 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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Rattlebone 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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf 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? 
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh 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.

Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh 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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh 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.

Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Rattlebone 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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf 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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 24, 2009, 12:41:44 am
you know i said i don't like it, but i'm using it quite a bit in all this. Thats the thing about language, once a word is created its there to stay. Its get used when trying to commmunicate with the people who use it, cause to them it means something.
 I don't like it ,but it is a point of reference. My teachers taught me that points of reference, like in math, are what really matters for understanding things.

  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.
you kno
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 24, 2009, 12:46:13 am
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.
get ready cause the borders will be opening up in our lifetime. SPP ACT , if you go to the gov website you'll find it, is about the creation of the North American Union. Right now its not called that, its being called the SPP. Its disguised as trade aggreements with safe passage and new roads for trade. but along with it goes international money, new i.d. cards, even that RFID chip. Dont' believe in the chip? go to the post office website, for the meanitime its by volunteer only.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 24, 2009, 12:57:21 am
when open borders are created, how will people views be then?

people have good memories , and they will remember how they were treated.

the whole concept of not believing in open borders implies a belief and backup of current borders, and the politics that go with them , and even how they came to be , and what they represent to all natives who live at the borders on all sides of them.

these natives will remember how you really felt about these borders that cause them so much trouble. they will know that most likely your heart won't change just cause they do not exist anymore. they will even think that you will wish for them to come back.

this doesn't mean we will support the new borders either, it just means you show where your heart lies if you believe in the current ones. and it isn't with us.

reality is something else. WE deal with reality and work with it and live with it, but we don't have to also believe in it or at least not with ALL of it.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Moma_porcupine on March 24, 2009, 01:38:23 am
Oh oh I seem to have run into someone who may be as long winded as myself ...

Gee Rattlebone , how am I ever going to find time to respond to all that ? And who is going to want to read through it all if I do ? You bring up a lot of complex issues that have been discussed other places on this message board such as the role of community in maintaining a culture, how a Native community should be defined, and what happens when bits and peieces of traditions get practiced outside of the entire culture.

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..

Especially as you will probably just reply in the same way in response.... If this is an endurance test to see who can type the longest you will probably win... 

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.

Koyoteh very first sentence in this thread ...
Quote
If a nation you claim to be from doesn't claim you, thats supposed to make you not indian anymore? Thats just crazy talk.

Reply #14
Rattlebone
 
Quote
To me BQ is short sighted because such a term, and using it to push out does not take into consideration that culture and ways can be passed down regardless of such a thing as BQ. If I was a person who watched my children out marry to non natives, and then my grandchildren do the same; it would be short sited of me to think that somehow I could not make sure that ways, language, and culture could still be passed down.

Rattlebone
Reply #23
Quote
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.

Logically , this position would mean that you believe that

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 .

OR

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

OR

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.

OR

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.

What do you really believe Rattlebone ? Do you believe A. B. C. or D. ?

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 .

It obviously wouldn't be the people you consider fully non native.

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.

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.

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 condeming them to some sort of lesser experience .

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

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 ?

I know i haven't replied to all your comments and if there is something particular you or anyone else feels is important, they could respond , or ask me to,  but responding to all that would be way more than I can manage...
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf on March 24, 2009, 02:02:00 am
Quote
get ready cause the borders will be opening up in our lifetime. SPP ACT , if you go to the gov website you'll find it, is about the creation of the North American Union. Right now its not called that, its being called the SPP. Its disguised as trade agreement with safe passage and new roads for trade. but along with it goes international money, new i.d. cards, even that RFID chip. Don’t' believe in the chip? go to the post office website, for the meanitime its by volunteer only.



Well we agree on something Koyoteh!  Your right, there is a huge agenda by both Republicans and Democrats to open up the borders.  Something like the EU free movement of people and goods program in Europe.  This also ties in to the amnesty issue.  Bush tried to ram it through congress, as Obama will probably try to do the same this year. Only time will tell what will happen.  I'll check that site though.



 
Quote
when open borders are created, how will people views be then?

people have good memories , and they will remember how they were treated.



If and when this happens.  My views will be exactly the same.  And I’ll tell it to anyone who would like to listen, whether it be on the internet or in person. 


Quote
the whole concept of not believing in open borders implies a belief and backup of current borders, and the politics that go with them , and even how they came to be , and what they represent to all natives who live at the borders on all sides of them.


I support first and foremost my fellow Indians from my own country, and the country I was born in, live in, and if I have my own way, die in.  If my little brother gets in a fight.  Do you think I care who started it or who was right or wrong?  I don’t think you would either.



Quote
these natives will remember how you really felt about these borders that cause them so much trouble. they will know that most likely your heart won't change just cause they do not exist anymore. they will even think that you will wish for them to come back.

Agreed.  My heart won't change.  If it happens, I’m sure I will wish for them to come back.

Quote
this doesn't mean we will support the new borders either, it just means you show where your heart lies if you believe in the current ones. and it isn't with us.


Agreed.  That is,if your referring to the Aztlan Movement.


Quote
reality is something else. WE deal with reality and work with it and live with it, but we don't have to also believe in it or at least not with ALL of it.


Well Said.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: SQuid on March 24, 2009, 02:03:32 am
Blackwolf - your comments concern us:
You wrote -
"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. "

There are a lot of Mohawks (traditional elders, women, children, warriors) who would disagree with you, with their very lives on the line, when it comes to the synthetic borders illegitimately determined by the United States of America.

Koyoteh - don't know anything about your people - wish I did. But I do recognize the essence of your message and want you to know that it crosses cultural lines. I understand and support your beliefs as being yours and sense you extend that same respect, understanding and support to others. And THAT reflects my understanding of many Indigenous Traditional belief systems. Traditions EVOLVE. People move. Customs, Practices, Cultures are not stagnant - they are organic and MUST change in order to survive - otherwise, everbody "traditional" might as well just check into the nearest museum and go on display as "colorful replicas of America's past." When confronted with the inevitible changes in life people generally do the best they can do, and that anyone older than us deserves a modicum of respect for that sheer existence, survival and whatever their experiences may offer ours. Furthermore, when did it become alright for outsiders to ANY tribe, nation, community to think THEIR opinions carry ANY validity about who is and who isn't Natively aligned with that community!
 That is somewhere between arrogant and paternalistic - both being non-traditional traits of colonialism. Or maybe it is simply naive.
Thank you for your patience and efforts Koyoteh. I sense you may soon be leaving this venue - your presence here added much food for genuine thought and thoughtful reflection. Stay well.

Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf on March 24, 2009, 02:33:27 am
Quote
There are a lot of Mohawks (traditional elders, women, children, warriors) who would disagree with you, with their very lives on the line, when it comes to the synthetic borders illegitimately determined by the United States of America.




The tribes with members on both sides of the border are a different story.  Maybe I should have been more clear.  They should be able to come and go as they please in these cases.  Such as the Mohawks, Tohono O'odham Nation in Arizona, and other nations on the border with Canada and the US.  They should be able to live and work anywhere with their people.  In another post I said the historic tribes from thier repective areas are the only people that has a claim to that land. 

Also, I'm not even againts immigration from Mexico and other countries or of having vistors and work visa programs.  What I am against is for example removing all Border Patrol Agents form the borders, and tearing down all checkpoints.  I don't believe that just because someone is an Indian from the Americas, that they have some kind of inherent right to travel and settle where ever they please.  IN the case of the Mohawks, they should have the right to travel anywhere there tribe is and across borders, because the tribe is divided.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 24, 2009, 09:40:59 pm
I have to write before your quote cause the window won't allow me to write below it if the text is too long.
I am really aware of the contact that has been going on between the mohawk and those down south. I really am for it. I'm not going to mention details cause you might not like that.
I think this threads discussion is going pretty well.
From what I have learned , every discussion or meeting or convention always begins with getting some personal issues out of the way. Then everyone starts to understand each other, things get cleared up and seperated, and we all feel better for having gotten things off our chest. This could last for hours or days or weeks or longer, in the real physical world . same goes here in cyberspace.
THEN AFTER ALL THAT is when the real respectable discussions start. ANd i think, hope, we are at that point now.
Blackwolf does notice when his words cause a bit of confusion and will sometimes rephrase his words.
I do this too. I try to anyways.
thanks for the support. we support you guys as well.
Blackwolf - your comments concern us:
You wrote -
"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. "

There are a lot of Mohawks (traditional elders, women, children, warriors) who would disagree with you, with their very lives on the line, when it comes to the synthetic borders illegitimately determined by the United States of America.

Koyoteh - don't know anything about your people - wish I did. But I do recognize the essence of your message and want you to know that it crosses cultural lines. I understand and support your beliefs as being yours and sense you extend that same respect, understanding and support to others. And THAT reflects my understanding of many Indigenous Traditional belief systems. Traditions EVOLVE. People move. Customs, Practices, Cultures are not stagnant - they are organic and MUST change in order to survive - otherwise, everbody "traditional" might as well just check into the nearest museum and go on display as "colorful replicas of America's past." When confronted with the inevitible changes in life people generally do the best they can do, and that anyone older than us deserves a modicum of respect for that sheer existence, survival and whatever their experiences may offer ours. Furthermore, when did it become alright for outsiders to ANY tribe, nation, community to think THEIR opinions carry ANY validity about who is and who isn't Natively aligned with that community!
 That is somewhere between arrogant and paternalistic - both being non-traditional traits of colonialism. Or maybe it is simply naive.
Thank you for your patience and efforts Koyoteh. I sense you may soon be leaving this venue - your presence here added much food for genuine thought and thoughtful reflection. Stay well.


Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 24, 2009, 09:48:48 pm
when we talk about the borders, its tough, cause there's the indigenous effects, and then there's the political and legal and everyday effects.
I seperate these things between the indigenous effects and the non-indigenous effects.

Speaking from indigenous way of looking at it is one thing. Thats gets deep. It can even conflict with the non-indigenous point of view that we have making it complicated.
Non-indigenous point of view as also being a citizen of this political country and world of law and work that we live in day to day, is something else.
I am for the legalization of immigrants that natives should have the right to move freely in native country , respecting the rules of natives in the areas we travel to and through. But then there's the real problem of gangs, drugs, crime,etc that passes through the border areas all the time. Even my people hate dealing with and talking about that part cause we don't like it, but at the same time dealing with it can cause problems from the native point of view.  Succeed at one cause hurt the other cause.

very difficult situation
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf on March 25, 2009, 04:15:35 am
Quote
Furthermore, when did it become alright for outsiders to ANY tribe, nation, community to think THEIR opinions carry ANY validity about who is and who isn't Natively aligned with that community!

I agree with this.  My tribe also has this problem of both Non-Indians and even Indians sticking their nose in our tribes business of who is or isn't or who should be or should'nt be a citizen/member of our Nation.  Your own people/tribe should decide this and not outsiders.   
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: educatedindian on March 25, 2009, 08:00:33 am
1. ...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....

   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?


2...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.


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.

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."

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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: bullhead on March 25, 2009, 04:31:28 pm
if someone is anonymous,they should be allowed to stay anonymous,unless law enforcement wants to know who they are.
If some one is behaving bad {personnal smears /Racist insults}boot them out.
don`t put up with that shit.
the whole issue in regards to BQ is bullshit.
Where do any of you get off putting labels on people?Podia/thinblood,what a bunch of crap where is the Humility the self respect.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf on March 25, 2009, 07:28:51 pm
Quote
I think this threads discussion is going pretty well.


I agree that the discussion is going well.  Not in the sense that everyone agreee with everyone else, but in the sense of having an honest dialog and hearing the opinions of those that disagree with us. Its always good to hear others views and their reasons for those views.


Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: LittleOldMan on March 25, 2009, 10:27:17 pm
I have been reading this thread and trying to decide if I had anything to add and did I even want to join the discussion.  Alas I decided to put my two cents worth  in any way.  Question.  What is the given reason that people are being dis enrolled?  Then in your opinion what is the real reason?  I have always been taught that historically it was the Tribe that decided both who and under what conditions (criteria) a person was to be considered a member of the Tribe.  Yes, and in some cases BQ was not a deciding factor.  From a biological point of view being a Indian is a racial definition.  Being a Lakota, Cherokee, or Muskogee is a social or cultural construct built around the concept of an extended family (relations).  While one can be thrown out of a family one can not be thrown out of his race can one.  Now to mixed race people.  There are as many reasons as there are people as to why they want to either connect or reconnect to their Native American Culture (heritage).  Some come for the right reasons some do not.  Herein lies one of the purposes of this forum.  That is to try to warn and protect those searching for some further identity within the Native Community about those FRAUDS that would take advantage of perhaps their ignorance and perhaps even more that that.  Sometimes even their fortune and chastity are put at risk by some of these abusers.  I am an old man now and was not raised with in a Native American culture and therefore lack the first hand knowledge and experience that one receives at the feet of his Elders.  My search for that part of my heritage has been one of over twenty years.  Arduous, sometimes filled with blind alleys crooks and turns, but patience and perseverance have rewarded me with Lot's of friends as well as knowledge.  Do I still make mistakes?  Of course I do for I am still a man.  Just to make a point of how we sometimes get sidetracked in just what is important a small story.  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. ;).  Comments offered up with respect to you all I am called "LittleOldMan"
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 26, 2009, 07:04:55 am
traditionally, sovereign nations , native ones here in particular to this thread, have the right to disenroll or kick out whomever they please for whatever reasons they decide upon.
  in our past this happened and the disenrolled native(s) would go off on their own and fend for themselves alone or with each other. Naturally they would regroup and become a larger group eventually. And eventually they be a whole other tribe or clan or nation or whatever. No problem. They'd even get their respect back if they had left because of something negative.
  But today, its different. Nations have no true sovereignty as much as we'd like to hope for and work for. Tribes still have to answer to the govts in which they reside. Specifically to the U.S. and the BIA dept. The laws were set up that way too even though I have been told that they have stepped back recently.
  When a member gets disenrolled where do they go? what happens to them? IF we look at whatever 'benefits' came from a treaty then they lose it all. Cruel. ITs not like they can just start another tribe anymore.
   but why do they get disenrolled? I feel it has a lot to do with money. sure, there may be some broken rules or whatever , but its about money. Like they say, follow the money. Who benefits from the disenrollment? Does the whole tribe reall benefit in every case?
In the big picture?

The other problem is that it isnt' anybody's business but the tribes. So then what? It means no one can help right? strange situation these days.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: earthw7 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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf 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?
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh 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.

Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: earthw7 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
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: LittleOldMan 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"
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Rattlebone 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?



Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Rattlebone 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?



Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: Diana 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
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh 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

Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf 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. 
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh 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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf 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? 
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf 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. 
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh 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. 
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh 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.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 28, 2009, 01:51:29 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. 
some parts maybe. But Aztlan was far from my mind in all this. I never brought up Aztlan . It came up in another thread. And so another thread was opened to get more into that tangent.
 Aztlan has no bearing on what I was saying. It can be applied though , if we want to go that route. But Aztlan is a place not a people.

My view on tribes, nations, clans, I got so many views . A lot of them go " .....on the other hand...." cause talking to so many other natives across the board, I still haven't found any consensus on any of these terms. So it makes it difficult to communicate when there are so many interpretations of what these words means.
i generally agree with sovereignty being included in the word tribe, clan, or nation, or whatever else there is out there, but sovereignty is all a these words mean. Like....a nation can have more than one tribe or clan. but sometimes we refer to the nation as tribe. Hard to tell what someone means "this time".
Whne I speak of my 'group" i am referring to what I know for sure these days. My circle. My danza group. I guess it can be called a heritage group in some ways, in other ways we are a tribe, but without any authority if that makes any sense. We don't represent the whole of the people of my larger group who aren't just dancers or even from my part of town.
  I kinda fell like , yeah we were a nation once , but now we are split up into "just" a lot of tribes.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf on March 28, 2009, 02:09:16 am
Quote
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.



Good Point here. 

Most countries and even many Indian Tribes and Empires are the result of Conquest.  Native Nations would go to war with each other all the time, and conquer another Tribe’s Territory.  The Aztec Empire subjugated who knows how many smaller Tribes and bands.   That can also be said of every modern Nation in the Americas starting from the Conquest in 1492.  Even in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. conquest happened.   There is the “Ideal World” that we all wish we lived in, and then there is the “Real World” that we have to live in. 
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: earthw7 on March 28, 2009, 03:05:05 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. 
some parts maybe. But Aztlan was far from my mind in all this. I never brought up Aztlan . It came up in another thread. And so another thread was opened to get more into that tangent.
 Aztlan has no bearing on what I was saying. It can be applied though , if we want to go that route. But Aztlan is a place not a people.

My view on tribes, nations, clans, I got so many views . A lot of them go " .....on the other hand...." cause talking to so many other natives across the board, I still haven't found any consensus on any of these terms. So it makes it difficult to communicate when there are so many interpretations of what these words means.
i generally agree with sovereignty being included in the word tribe, clan, or nation, or whatever else there is out there, but sovereignty is all a these words mean. Like....a nation can have more than one tribe or clan. but sometimes we refer to the nation as tribe. Hard to tell what someone means "this time".
Whne I speak of my 'group" i am referring to what I know for sure these days. My circle. My danza group. I guess it can be called a heritage group in some ways, in other ways we are a tribe, but without any authority if that makes any sense. We don't represent the whole of the people of my larger group who aren't just dancers or even from my part of town.
  I kinda fell like , yeah we were a nation once , but now we are split up into "just" a lot of tribes.

A nation is a large body of people with a land base,government system, language, culture, spirituality, way of life, and divided into smalled group like bands or clans.

Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 30, 2009, 07:33:16 pm
real world reality is also that there is animosity between nations. It comes up from time to time. I won't say which tribes cause I don't want to feed into it. BUt I think we have all felt it at one time or another and may also have chosen not to feed into it, but we did recognize it.
I often wondered where the animosity actually originated. I don't believe its really about what we see  on t.v or the news. I believe that there is more likely some lingering grudges from way back that even our elders can't remember what the grudges are really about. Nor do the ones that hold grudges against us. What we do feel is when we get something held agaisnt us, or hold something against someone else but don't really know why.
Or maybe they do know some incident but can't explain why the incident really took place.
"Aztecs subjugated" some say yes, some say no . Hard to say. IF they did, its understandable that others would still hold a grudge and even have a fear of them/us rising again and doing it all over again. But did it really happen? According to the t.v. and books it did, but then this whole site is dedicated to exposing fake people and fake books right? Fakeness is out there.
  Then again it could be just propaganda created by govt and media for their own purposes. Happens all the time. They create a fear that benefits them. We fall for it.

So whats real then?
Quote
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.



Good Point here. 

Most countries and even many Indian Tribes and Empires are the result of Conquest.  Native Nations would go to war with each other all the time, and conquer another Tribe’s Territory.  The Aztec Empire subjugated who knows how many smaller Tribes and bands.   That can also be said of every modern Nation in the Americas starting from the Conquest in 1492.  Even in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. conquest happened.   There is the “Ideal World” that we all wish we lived in, and then there is the “Real World” that we have to live in. 
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on March 30, 2009, 07:35:10 pm
maybe a word , without discrediting a people , or without giving credit to people with no tribe could be......the DISBANDED. ?

Maybe that describes my people best, we were disbanded and still are. A disbanded nation.
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf on April 01, 2009, 05:36:28 am
Sometimes you hear the word Wannabe Cherokee or Fake Cherokee.  And sometimes you hear the word Undocumented Cherokee and sometimes Podia. 

There are even documented Cherokees who don't qualify for citizenship in any of the 3 Federally Recognized Tribes.  These people have ancestors on different Cherokee rolls.  I would call these people, people of "Cherokee descent". 

For the others, I prefer the word "Cherokee Claimants". This is a neutral word.  Because if you say undocumented Cherokee or Podia, you are assuming their claims to be true, when they may or may not be.  And when people look racially white, no one can really say whether or not they had a great grandma who was Cherokee. But I really don't know how it is possible for all these undocumented Cherokees to even exist if you look at the history of our tribe.  Some might really have Cherokee blood, but some might not.  If you say someone is a PODIA,you are assuming that they in fact do have Cherokee blood.  Some might just have all white ancestors.  Who knows?  No one knows for sure.  So as far as the undocumented Cherokees go.  When I meet some of them, I can't really say one way or the other as to whether I think they are Cherokee or not or have Cherokee blood or not.  I guess there is always that doubt that I have, but at the same time, the stories they were told might really be true. Nobody knows.
 
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf on April 01, 2009, 05:40:32 am
Koyoteh, how do you know all of your people are people of Mexica decent?  Your case is different, cause I think you said your grandma spoke the language.  But what about the others?  Since your peole don't have rolls, how do you know who is or isn't Mexica.  Also, do you accept for example, people who say they might be Otomi, or Mayan, or Zapotec? 

That's one of the criticisms people have of the undocumented Cherokee tribes.  That they just take anyone that says  "I'm Cherokee"
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on April 01, 2009, 06:46:03 pm
i admit , its a problem. Or rather a challenge. Your question is the first question we ask ourselves.
we ask ourselves , others ask us, we present the our question to others - others from what we think would be our nation and other nations .. their elders. They all tell us the same things. "you are one of us". This is coming from ALL the elders of all the nations we have ever talked to. See elders of our nations and from other nations , as older people, see things and say things different than what you may think. I personally witness on many occasions , elders from many nations tell their people one thing than tell me something completely the opposite. Even to the point of making fun of their own people and kids. I don't say it as a put down. I see it as a point of them being human and wanting to have fun. I see that many times they just want to tell people things but they can only tell people who are willing to really listen to them ,and more often than not these days, their own people's youth just don't want to listen, so they come talk to us. We are wiling to listen. But this presents a new problem, we AREN'T  their people. so respectfully, we never mention this problem. Now i am breaking the respect by telling you this but I find it relevant here.

Who am I? Edlers tell me , it really doesn't matter. We all need to choose. To take a stand. To have a starting point. Yes I have more than just Mexica in me . I have Yaqui. I have mentioned that before. I also have Zacateca. I had to make a decision as to what way I would choose. But pretty much back then we were all part of the same world and alliances and such things. I say even under the same flag. So does it really matter? I chose to follow my mexica ways, cause that is what is here and available to me. Its the least catholic these days. Yauqis have become very catholic and I don't want to be catholic. Yes lots of mexica have also become catholics, but lots of us have turned away from that.

And just like our people did in the old days, however we did it, we accept others into our groups, as our groups have accepted me.
With htat how could we turn anyone away? Turning people away based on their being disbanded or diconnected would be like denying ourselves. We believe in whats called IN lak Ech its mayn for  You are my other me . With that how can I deny you or anyone ? How could you deny me? (sounds kinda whiny, huh?, but is just to make the point of the tradition)

Koyoteh, how do you know all of your people are people of Mexica decent?  Your case is different, cause I think you said your grandma spoke the language.  But what about the others?  Since your peole don't have rolls, how do you know who is or isn't Mexica.  Also, do you accept for example, people who say they might be Otomi, or Mayan, or Zapotec? 

That's one of the criticisms people have of the undocumented Cherokee tribes.  That they just take anyone that says  "I'm Cherokee"
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on April 01, 2009, 06:54:06 pm
theres another tradition of just accepting someones word. Its on them after that. Accepting someones word isn't so much about the other persons being honest or not - thats their responsibility. Its more about ones own personal character. Do I have self respect? Do I have self dignity? Do I have common courtesy? if someone later shows themselves to be false, okay then, I no longer trust them, but I don't have to destroy my character by being a dick. That would be dishonor to my mother.

Someone  says they are cherokee, its not for me to say. I say "okay then , maybe you are , maybe you aren't , only you would know" if they are does it change things? should it? If they aren't does it change things? should it? In both cases , shouldn't I still remain respectful and honor my parents and elders? My upbringing? Maybe they aren't cherokee, but are they good people?

If they are bad people then should I tear up my mind and heart and gut making myself sick by behaving , justifiably, with animosity? or should i just stay away from them? and use my energy more constructively elsewhere?

even this talkign could be considered a waste of time ,but I see it as constructive in finding ways to communicate. exercises in writing clearly. And that ain't easy.

Koyoteh, how do you know all of your people are people of Mexica decent?  Your case is different, cause I think you said your grandma spoke the language.  But what about the others?  Since your peole don't have rolls, how do you know who is or isn't Mexica.  Also, do you accept for example, people who say they might be Otomi, or Mayan, or Zapotec? 

That's one of the criticisms people have of the undocumented Cherokee tribes.  That they just take anyone that says  "I'm Cherokee"
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf on April 01, 2009, 08:28:03 pm
Quote
Someone  says they are cherokee, its not for me to say. I say "okay then , maybe you are , maybe you aren't , only you would know" if they are does it change things? should it? If they aren't does it change things? should it? In both cases , shouldn't I still remain respectful and honor my parents and elders? My upbringing? Maybe they aren't cherokee, but are they good people?

If they are bad people then should I tear up my mind and heart and gut making myself sick by behaving , justifiably, with animosity? or should i just stay away from them? and use my energy more constructively elsewhere?

I agree that all people regradless of their race, religion, culture, should be respected.  I respect everyone whether or not they are Indian or Cherokee.  I agree that there are good people in all races. 

But my point is that Indian Nations are based on "blood"  Some have different BQ requriements, or have their membership based on a matrilineal line, etc.  But it still comes down to the "blood"  That is the conerstone of citizenship in Indian Nations. 

It's not like for example, an immigrant comes to the US, intergrates, learns English and applies for citizenshp.  Also, in Mexico, you can marry a Mexican citizen, live there, learn some history,  and later apply for Mexican Citizenship.

In Indian Nations its not like that.  You either have the "blood" or you don't.  There are Tribal Members of some Indian Nations that don't know nothing about the ways of their tribe.  But they are "of the blood", and members of the tribe.

Then you have maybe whites or blacks, that live on or near a reservation, and learn the ways, and become integrated, and participate in ceramony ect.   But they will never be able to become a citizen or member of that tribe because they are not "of the blood"

I agree with this.  If you are not "of Indian blood" of a Tribe, your not a member of that tribe.

Thats not to say,  that there are not a lot of highly respected whites or blacks recognized in other ways by a tribe.  I know there are whites for example, that have done  a lot of good things for Indians and Indian Tribes and maybe even some blacks.  But I'm never going to recognize them as someone of "my blood" or as someone of my Tribe.  Thats how I see things.

Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: koyoteh on April 02, 2009, 12:55:10 am
is it or is it not , for some tribes at least , their right to adopt or admit people into their tribe? I thought it they did. They should if they are sovereign in theory at least.

If that is the case, then that would include natives of any amount of blood being able to be part of another tribe at that tribes discretion. So also it would be possible for a tribe to allow someone in who has no blood at all. That would also be at their discretion. That probably would be unlikely to happen, but I can't say it never happened. And if it did happen, then shouldn't that tribes decision be respected?  Not liked just respected because of their sovereignty.


I know one guy who was adopted into a tribe. A clan to be more specific. The tribe itself was or is still working on the fed rec part. but he was adopted in. The adoptee was of another u.s. tribal descent but wasn't living with his people after his grandma died.

Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf on April 02, 2009, 03:02:09 am
Quote
is it or is it not , for some tribes at least , their right to adopt or admit people into their tribe? I thought it they did. They should if they are sovereign in theory at least.

If that is the case, then that would include natives of any amount of blood being able to be part of another tribe at that tribes discretion. So also it would be possible for a tribe to allow someone in who has no blood at all. That would also be at their discretion. That probably would be unlikely to happen, but I can't say it never happened. And if it did happen, then shouldn't that tribes decision be respected?  Not liked just respected because of their sovereignty.

I know one guy who was adopted into a tribe. A clan to be more specific. The tribe itself was or is still working on the fed rec part. but he was adopted in. The adoptee was of another u.s. tribal descent but wasn't living with his people after his grandma died.

I agree that yes, it is up to the Tribe as to whether or not they want to adopt a non-Indian into the Tribe.  When you say adopt or admit, I'm asuming you mean granting Citizenship or Tribal Membership.  I think back in the 1800's, my tribe granted citizenship by marriage to intermarried whites.  Meaning, if you married a Tribal member by blood, you would have citizenship.  But it's not like that no more. 

Although, I agree it should be the Tribe's decision in this matter, I'm againts the idea in principle.  There are some notable exceptions however.  Such as the case of Will Thomas being adopted into the Eastern Band of Cherokees.  He was a white man, who did a lot for the Cherokees.  In that case I would be for it.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Holland_Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Holland_Thomas)
Title: Re: "you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"
Post by: BlackWolf on April 02, 2009, 03:10:13 am
But it would really have to be someone who really did something spectacular for the Tribe.  Not just any white or black that comes along and hangs out with the Tribe and participates in ceramony. 

There's also exceptions like the case of certain Shawnees and Delaware who are citizens of the Cherokee Nation.  But cases like this are the exception.