It's very bizarre that, again and again, some of the Pretendian opponents keep repeating the same racist lie spread by the worst white racists. Again,
there is NO such thing as "Indian positions" or "Native positions" in academia. There are no racial or ethnic set asides, period. They've been outlawed since the 1970s Bakke court case. No one gets hired "just for being Native." That claim is the kind made by Trumpers, Nazis, Klansmen, and those ignorant enough to believe them. In the case of some Pretendian fighters, they have a strange alliance with people who hate anyone not white.
Anybody can write or research or teach or about anything, any subject, and apply for any job. If that were not true, then I couldn't teach both Western Civilization and African American History as I do most semesters.
That's different from scholarships and admissions, where there are ones intended to help some groups, including women, gays, and for that matter, whites. Yes, all those legacy admissions and scholarships wind up helping mostly wealthy white males, like the Bush and Trump families. That's the real set asides for the less competent.
The big problem is when a professor or scholar claims to speak as an insider when they are not. Her response:
----------
https://minio.la.utexas.edu/colaweb-prod/profile/custom_pages/0/1591/response_to_taaf_c759fd45-99a2-4586-b679-d4a8e67d0dd7.pdf....While it is true that my research has focused on
American Indian identity and the repercussions of racial politics on tribal sovereignty, I
have done that work first and foremost as an anthropologist, not as someone speaking
from the standpoint of having an “American Indian perspective.” In fact, I have
consistently worked to distance myself from that assumption by asserting repeatedly
that I am only a descendant and not a tribal citizen. Consider how I positioned myself in
my second book:
One other fact affected how people interacted with me in the field: my own
status as a Mississippi Choctaw descendant, which was not information I
volunteered unless someone asked me directly if I had tribal ties. In these
instances, I identified myself as having primarily Sicilian and German ancestry, but
also Mississippi Choctaw ancestry through my father’s mother. I was always quick
to add that I was not a tribal citizen and had not been raised in Mississippi within
the context of a tribal community. Despite these important caveats, I soon
realized that I had little control over other people’s readings of my ancestry and
identity (Becoming Indian, 25).
Even Kim TallBear, who has been very outspoken about the problem of Pretendians,
wrote in her blog dating to September 10, 2021, that “descendant” can be used in
careful ways by academics who want to describe “their positionality in publications, how
they came to be interested in those topics, or gained the ear of Indigenous community
members,” but only if “they are also careful to explain that they were raised in nonIndigenous cultures
and by non-Indigenous family.” She goes on to write that “Circe Sturm states this exceptionally
well in Becoming Indian (25).” (“Indigenous “RaceShifting” Red Flags,” Unsettle). So, I have
pushed back on these (mis)readings of me as having an “American Indian perspective” by
noting the non-Indian contexts and cultures in which I was raised, my other Sicilian and German ancestry,
and by consistently specifying that I am only a descendant....
If I were writing the second book in the
current climate, I might have handled things differently, but for me to suddenly deny my
ancestry claims and change my narrative felt disingenuous. And in my third, forthcoming
book, I do not write about Native Americans at all, but rather the faith practices of
Sicilian women in Texas. If I were trying to profit from a false American Indian identity,
then choosing Sicilian Americans as a topic of research seems like a bad strategy.
Additionally, during my 30 years in the academy, I have worked against other people’s
assumptions about my ancestry and identity by NOT checking the “American Indian”
box. This was the case when I applied to college as both and undergraduate and
graduate student, when I applied for anthropology jobs at the University of Oklahoma
and the University of Texas, and over the years whenever I have applied for grants and
fellowships. I recall one instance when I was specifically encouraged to apply for a
fellowship that was earmarked for American Indian applicants, the Lamon Fellowship at
SAR, but I refused based on the fact that I felt those benefits were intended for tribal
citizens and not descendants like me. Even in my most recent application for funding to
the NEH in 2024, on the section asking about racial demographics, I selected “I prefer
not to answer this question,” something that best reflects my reality—I do not see
myself as solely a white woman nor as American Indian but rather as a descendant, and
not answering helps ensure that I do not get placed in the unwanted position of taking
advantage of opportunities that are not intended for me.
....I have never received a grant, job, or fellowship from checking the “American Indian” box,
nor have I ever denied being primarily Sicilian and German American or ever claimed to be a
tribal citizen, I believe that my case does not meet your criteria of false claims for profit and overall harm.
-------------
Most of the rest of her letter is why she believed herself a descendant and her efforts to prove it, family stories, researchers
etc. So the question then becomes TAAF's research showing she likely is not. That may be important to TAAF. It's
never been important to NAFPS to go after someone who believed themselves to have ancestry when they didn't profit from it or abuse people in any way.
Recent Posts