Odds and Ends > Etcetera
Adoption Ceremonies
critter - a white non-ndn person:
Those political items, sure, they wouldn't be eligible for as they are not ndn. But to grow up in a community knowing you don't have any rights, or the same rights as the rest of the people, would be, imo, rather horrible. A 2nd class citizen that doesn't really belong. That's just my opinion and it really doesn't matter here anyway. It just makes me sad.
earthw7:
I never though a person would be a second class citizen because they are not enrolled! :o
We have many people who live here among the tribe that are not enrolled they are no different
that anyone else here, the difference is they follow state law instead of tribal law.
To be truthful i have never seen a native couple adopted a white child, that is something new
i could hear the out cry if that happened. I know the united states would step in that case.
Two of my own grandchildren are not enrolled but they are still my grandchildren ;D
The rolls are today by blood quantum to protect us as a people when they first started BQ is
was a way to get rid of us now today we use it to protect us. We do have to protect ourselves
from the world so that we can live as a people.
MsWilma:
Hi from Australia,
On the one hand, being a white australian, this is none of my business, so I apologise before hand if anyone here feels I'm intruding.
On the other hand, as a human being I'm looking at the notion of 'blood quotient' . I'm coming from a from a culture without blood quotient as a requirement of proof re: an individual's indigenous status. (...anymore, but that's a loong history in itself)
It disturbs me that someone's 'blood quotient' could be used to determine anyof their rights within any society.
Educated Indian writes:
" Imagine the incredible abuse, and huge public outcry by those already hostile to NDNs, if nonNatives actually could be adopted into tribes. "Why're we throwing away my tax dollars on people who ain't really Indians?"
In the past couple of years, Australia has had a celebrated courtcase, in which a journalist accused a group of fair skinned people of indigenous descent and holding respected roles within their communities, of 'not being aboriginal enough', and exploiting aboriginal culture for their own purposes. He was found guilty of defamation for a range of reasons. I posted a thread re his trial some time ago. You'll find it here, if you're interested:
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=3272.0
I feel proud to be part of a culture willing to attempt to stand up to the abuse and outcry created by racial hostility (I'm not saying we get it all right- just that I believe that its the right thing to do)
I like Australia's current legal definition of Aboriginality. It has 3 parts:
An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is
-a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent
-who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and
-is accepted as such by the community in which he [or she] lives.
Here's a link to the Australian Law Reform Commission's info on legal definitions of aboriginality:
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/36-kinship-and-identity/legal-definitions-aboriginality
Humans being what we are, there may well be individuals out there who exploit this definition for their own purposes. I still like it.
Yes, this leads to debate and dissension. I believe that it's debate that we need to have.
Again, I may have dragged this thread off topic- sorry :) It's relevance to this topic, I suppose, is that in my (outsiders) opinion, surely it's up to each tribe to decide for themselves who is and isnt a part of their community? Rather than some externally imposed 'proof'?
If blood quotient is important to a community for cultural reasons I dont understand, well then, thats just the way its going to be. But it would be a pity if a community is hanging onto blood quotients, because there's a fear that it's the only way to prove their right to exist - to outsiders who the world around have used notions of race such as 'blood quotients' for some pretty unpalatable reasons.
earthw7:
I guess you will have to understand the united states policy it was created by the united States started in 1770
and today the tribes have taken what was forced on them and made it a policy to protect themselves of course each
nation decided who belong to them so some tribes have lineal descendant, well other have blood quantum, and then the
blood quantum is total up to the tribe so it goes from 1/2 to 1/16. So in my nation you have to be 1/4 blood from my tribe
and one or more parents on our rolls, we allow all dakota-lakota-nakota tribes.
But some nations allow all native blood, some only allow from the mother's side or the father's side.
Today we have fakes-frauds and other who will take our culture and spirituality claiming to be adopted into our tribes
and became so sort of medicine man-aka shaman or something crazy like that. So we say prove it to us that you belong
to us. Most of the blood quantum has a lot to do with land and the ownership of our land, we are still landowners.
We know that we have to protect ourselves from the non native who think they can take what they want from our culture,
to steal our names, our spirituality and our way of life, i even heard a white woman running around Australia claiming to be
the white buffalo calf woman or those who are doing sweat lodge ceremonies in your country which is an horrid and should
never have happened. The bottom line is This site is not about Blood quantum.
I am proud to be 7/8 Ihunktonwana, Pabaska, Sisseton, Hunkpapa, Sihasapa and 1/8 Oglala, I still say it is our right as a tribal nation to decide who belong to my nation and no one has the right to tell us other wise
MsWilma:
Hi earthw7, thanks for replying to me, yes, it is absolutely your right to decide who belongs to your tribes and who does not. There are a lot of nations in North America who've been working on this for centuries. You know a lot more about this than I ever will, and its not really my business,so as I said earlier, I apologise if I offend you by giving my opinion. It's only another opinion.
And yes, here in Australia, land rights have a long long way to go, and indigenous australians were denied the vote until as recently as 1962. We have a shameful history of colonial invasion, massacre and exploitation that continues to this day. Nevertheless, I'm glad that the 'blood quotient' discussion is not currently an issue. Historically Austrralia hasnt got a lot right in terms of indigenous rights, so I'm probably proud of our stand on this, because we've got so much wrong...
I support this site exposing the whole plastic shaman phenomenon. I found NAFPS after some local friends began sending me links to a fake shaman. I learn a lot here, and this site has led me to learning a lot more about our history here in Aus as well.
I think that the white woman you're referring to was a US citizen, Marlo Morgan. She popped up in the 90s with an offensive book called 'Mutant Message Down Under'. I also remember aboriginal people here protesting her story, so I've just googled her again. She mainly sold her story to the european and US markets (more sales and money than Australia). A group of elders travelled to the USA and confronted Morgan about the book. She admitted that she faked it, but her admission didnt get much press.
Here's a link to the wikipedia story on Morgan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlo_Morgan
Here's a link to the Dumbartung report on the work the elders did in the 90s to discredit her:
http://dumbartung.org.au/report1.html
- She was only one of many. There are plenty of frauds named on this site who come down to Australia, where they find an easy audience. This site is really valuable for educating people here, so thankyou.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version