When NAFPS members misrepresent themselves

[Moma_porcupine]

There is something bothering me and I'd like to hear peoples opinions;

Should NAFPS tolerate people who misrepresent themselves?

I guess there is a whole spectrum of ways people can do this, so there probably isn't a black and white sort of answer , but this being cyberspace , it's something that seems to come up quite often.

There has been people who seem to feel compelled to announce they are Cherokee in almost every post and after a while the pieces start to add up and you realize they mean there is a story that their Gr grandmothers Gr grandmother was Cherokee.

I guess it is the Ward Churchill manouver . Some people seem to use being active in advocating for Native rights as justification to claim a Native identity .

When people do this, is it harmless foolishness or is it a problem?

If it is sometimes a problem and sometimes not , when does it become a problem ?

If it's a problem , what is the best way to deal with this ?

I see the fights that never seem to get resolved over on Indianz about who is really a real Indian and who isn't , and though these are important questions in real life, proving or disproving someones claims in cyberspace can be really time consuming and even if a liar is exposed , they usuaully just lie more .

The thread on Larry Sampson is a good example of how hard it is to actually nail these people down.

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=950.0;all

In Larry's case, someone got letters from the tribe he claimed to be enrolled in , and the letters said he isn't enrolled in the tribe . The letters were posted on line and his response was that the letters from the tribe were all forged and fraudulent .

So on one hand it seems there isn't a lot to be gained from confronting people like this.

On the other hand , it seems to me that people who participate here and who misrepresent themselves discredit the work we do and to some degree these people undermine the credibility of everyone they work with.     

I also worry that for many people, just seeing someone participating on this message board gives the impression the person's claims are accepted, and the person is probably trustworthy. Unfortunately that is not always true.     

So if there is substantial evidence a NAFPS member is misrepresenting themself , when is this a serious concern and when is it not and when it is serious , what is the best thing to do? 

I'd like to hear other peoples opinion on this.

[nighthawk]

- removed by author -

[Barnaby_McEwan]

This is one of the questions arising here which sometimes keeps me awake at night. I think questions about  particular people would have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. That's what happens generally. Stefan Klemenc springs to mind. He turned up, using the name Neil Greenwood, claiming to be very concerned about some fraud in Germany. It turned out he was also a rather comical, yet humourless, fraud in Germany. He left in a huff.

If someone has provably tried to use this forum to promote themselves in some cynically dishonest way then we'd think carefully about whether their continued membership would be a good thing. Membership meaning ability to post on or read the forum.

[Moma_porcupine]

Thanks to Barnaby and Nighthawk for their responses .

Reading this helped me think it through and better identify some of the specific situations that trouble me - and why I feel bugged by this.

Nighthawk

I don't think it's a problem at all, unless the person making the (false) claims (1) is a public figure, in a position of authority and able to influence public policy in some way; (2) is doing so for some financial benefit; (3) is just plain misrepresenting the people/community/culture that s/he claims to be a part of, but in a way that impacts on the people very directly and negatively or may harm others.

I agree with what you are saying here , but the problem is, people who post stuff about themselves on a public message board ,are to some degree public figures and presumably we all post here in the hopes of having some small influence on other people, and public policey.

I guess sometimes , there is just different opinions about how much importance a particular aspect of ourselves should be given. Maybe that person who calls themself Cherokee because there is a story their gr grandma's gr grandma  was  Cherokee , honestly believes the story and honestly believes that one drop of Native blood makes them an indigenous person.

The problem is , this belief gets often gets elaborated upon , and transforms into thinking that their "Native identity" entiles them to control over the resources and culture that belong to Native people.  Or more specifically this control belongs in the hands of strong and viable native communities .

I seems to me that the process of colonization has never been acheived through the actions of just a few individuals and it is the mainly the assumptions of entitlement which get acted out by the general population which work together to displace the recognition and soveighnty of indigenous people.

So , as I see it, people who focus exclusively on a tiny part of their own heritage and claim a Native identity when no strong and deeply rooted indigenous Nation recognizes this , are comitting a small act of colonization, even if the person doing this is entirely innocent of this intention and simply identifies mostly with this part of their background.   

Offering political or military support in exchange for consessions which undermine the soveriehnty of a nation is one of the oldest tricks in the book. So when I see people posting here , and offering helpful information , but at the same time making claims to a native identity that no strong and viable Nation would recognize ,  it seems completely contrary to our purposes here, and it does bug me .

As long as these claims are based in reality, it seems the discussions which come up from people having different opinions on this are constructive and educational.

But then there is the type of misrepresentation which can seem a lot more intentional or cynical as Barnaby calls it. Like for instance when someone claims they are from one tribe and provides some elaborate information about this, then a while later, maybe when they are involved in a different group, they claim they are from a whole different tribe and give different elaborate information , and these various stories don't fit together at all?

As I see it, people who consciously lie are trying to influence  the public and are lying in order to get people to give them something people would not choose to give them if they had all the facts. So even if someone has learned some basic information and the cultural information is correct , and they aren't an exploiter in any other way , if they are misrepresenting themself there is still a fraud going on and IMO this is still wrong because people are in some way being tricked.

Maybe 99 percent of the time this is of little consequence, but in some situations for some people what seems to be a small lie might derail someone in a way that has serious consequences which they would not have chosen if they hadn't been tricked. And sometimes , if people or the circumstances make people vulnerable, this derailment can be really seriously harmful.

I guess I also have some personal beliefs around the importance of doing our best to tell the truth . I believe the Creator created what is real and lives in what is real , so when we do our best to work with the truth , we are doing our best to respect what the Creator created and to work with tthe Creator. When we neglect to do this , we disrespect the Creator and we get ourselves into trouble.

So anyone who plays a part of defending traditional ways of Prayer, but at the same time lies about who they are feels like someone working on  getting soft drink machines removed from schools when the same person is lobbying to replace these with candy and potatoe chip machines.

I also believe people have a right to know the truth , just as much as they have a right to clean air, food and water, and anybody who withholds this from them through misrepresenting something , is doing so for personal gain, and that is wrong. It's fraud.

I don't mean people should have access to private information or that people should have to reveal anything about who they are. Being anonymous and not sharing much personal information isn't misrepresenting oneself.

It is kind of like our underwear. It's private, unless we or someone close to us posts something on the intenet making claims that we own the underwear that was worn by Marilyn Munroe when she married Elvis Presely. If someone makes a claim like that , out undewear is no longer nobody else's buisnes, and if all the evidence is that Mariyn Munroe never married Elvis Presely, to make such a claim is probalby a fraud and the claim is made with the intention of tricking someone into doing something they wouldn't do if they knew that underwear just belonged to someones grandma who was named Jane Smith.     

The other problem with people who lie is that if anyone threatens them they tend to get really nasty , and all people have to do to make a liar feel threatened is to be capable of telling the truth.

I have seen situations where someone working in a Native organization  falsely claimed to be mixed blood and decended from a particular tribe. The work they were doing was OK , but when someone who was really from the tribe they claimed began asking friendly questions about their relatives, the person who had lied did everything they could to get their coworker removed from the organization , and this serious impacted the person who really was from this tribe and the work the organization was involved in. 

From what I have seen people who lie are unstable, frequently dangerous and they often do hurt people.

People who are researching questionable people do perform google searches and they do make judgments based on who people seem to be associated with and trusted by. I know behind the scenes someone recently did this with someone who does not appear to be who they are claiming to be, but because a google search showed them as involved in what appeared to be some good causes, in that persons mind that was enough to halt further inquiries . ,

It's true that the moderators do do a good job and a lot of this stuff appears to get dealt with behind the scenes , but that still leaves me wondering ;

If there is evidence someone is lying to the public, even if this isn't the sort of fraud which is usually exposed here, if the person has been involved posting here, does the public have a right to know that evidence and the right to make up their own mind what to do with it?

I guess this is a bit of a rant, but I really feel honesty is an important thing ... But so is maintaining a balance, not getting lost in unresolvable disputes and keeping our focus on the really serious frauds and exploitation out there.

Thanks again for the feed back ...

[Defend the Sacred]

This is an open message board on the Internet. Not all of us agree. There are posts on here that speak in glowing terms of people who others of us know are either questionable or have exploited. Take anything, including "endorsements" on NAFPS, with a bushel of salt.

Also the "ranking" of members on here is misleading. Someone can be listed as a "Senior Member" simply because they've posted a lot. Doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Sometimes new members get the mistaken impression that a "Senior Member" speaks for the group, when really they may just spend a lot of time posting on the Internet.

There is also the fact that just because someone has training and background in a legitimate community, doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be a good, honorable, or non-exploitative person. Hopefully we can give people some guidelines here, but even some of the most experienced among us have been taken in by predators before.

Caveat... uh, Internetor.

ETA: I've often wished we had stricter standards. We've had threads on here where it's been shown a "member" is misrepresenting themselves. My impression is that the general policy has been "give 'em enough rope," but I think it's harmful to have someone listed as a "Senior Member" posting here and then calling themselves a "shaman" on their profiles elsewhere.

[bls926]

This is an open message board on the Internet. Not all of us agree. There are posts on here that speak in glowing terms of people who others of us know are either questionable or have exploited. Take anything, including "endorsements" on NAFPS, with a bushel of salt.

Also the "ranking" of members on here is misleading. Someone can be listed as a "Senior Member" simply because they've posted a lot. Doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Sometimes new members get the mistaken impression that a "Senior Member" speaks for the group, when really they may just spend a lot of time posting on the Internet.

There is also the fact that just because someone has training and background in a legitimate community, doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be a good, honorable, or non-exploitative person. Hopefully we can give people some guidelines here, but even some of the most experienced among us have been taken in by predators before.

Caveat... uh, Internetor.

ETA: I've often wished we had stricter standards. We've had threads on here where it's been shown a "member" is misrepresenting themselves. My impression is that the general policy has been "give 'em enough rope," but I think it's harmful to have someone listed as a "Senior Member" posting here and then calling themselves a "shaman" on their profiles elsewhere.

Has this really happened? Shaman?? Damn.

Honesty is so important to me. I can't emphasize the value I place on truthfulness. I know this is the internet, but I think people should be the same here as they are in real life. Don't pretend to be someone or something you aren't. That applies not only to NAFPS, but anywhere you're posting. Be yourself.

As this applies to NAFPS . . . I think a very high priority should be placed on truthfulness. If a member is claiming to be someone they aren't, how are they any different than the frauds we help to expose? Just because they may not be selling ceremony, doesn't make it okay. Claiming a spirituality and culture that is not rightfully yours is wrong. Appropriation doesn't have to be sold to make it unethical. A lie is still a lie, even if no money is attached to it.  What should we do about this? I don't know.

[nighthawk]

- removed by author -

[nighthawk]

- removed by author -

[Moma_porcupine]

nighthawk

I only just now noticed the tiny type "Senior Member" under some names. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't take that as anything all that serious.

Yeah but Nighthawk - you seem to be a bit more intellegent than some people.

Like me for instance ...

When I first joined this message board i remember getting a PM from someone who had posted about 70 times and it said "senior member" and I thought " Oh gee they must be trustworthy because this is an anti fraud board and look how much they have been involved - if they weren't trustworthy surely someone would have said this ."

I'm not saying I think it would be better if people had to prove who they are before they can post here, and if that happened it would really damage the ability of people to drop in and discuss stuff.  And it doesn't seem to be a big problem if people occaisionally mention they are descended from or affiliated with or enrolled in a tribe without proof and references .

I think Al is a good example of someone who sometimes mentions he is mixed blood and of Apache / Irish/ Mexican descent , but the information he provides never depends on this or his alleged personal background . He just helps people recognize the voices of the true indigenous leaders.

So I'm not talking about people occaisionally making unverifiable claims about their ancestors which they don't want to verify because of privacy or saftey concerns.  I'm more talking about when there is substantial evidence someone is misrepresenting themselves or outright lying about who they are , and their claims about who they are is a large component and central component of what they bring to this message board.  There isn't many people here who do that, but unfortunately the ones who do have some sort of agenda which can make them quite persistent.

[MatoSiWin]

I'm new, and no expert about anything at all, but I would like to add my 2 cents if I may.  I e-mailed one member here regarding my background only because I felt it was relevant to a question I was asking them.  But I DO belive background is important if you want to claim to be an Indian versus being someone who admires Indian culture (I use this loosely as I am acutely aware that not all Indians have the same culture).  I'm not saying blood percentages or enrollment verses non-enrollment... I'm referring to people who call themselves Indian because they heard they had a great great Grandmother who was some Cherokee princess.  I do believe this is harmful, not in a huge sense, and not to the Indian community at large, but to some, and I'll explain why. 

It causes some "TRUE" Indians to take some people who truly know or feel they have Indian roots but can't prove it (yet) less serious, and can make it difficult for those separated from their families and ways to find a way back.  I am one of those who due to adoption is unclear of my family and where I come from/where I belong, therefore I am very careful to make it clear that I am still in the researching process.  According to family members, my mother's father was/is Sioux, but I am waiting for an official record before claiming to be Indian.  The reason I don't just call myself Indian based on a family "rumor" is because if that's all it takes, then what makes one's heritage so unique and special?  And why would I want to identify myself as something I am not?  I also HATE white people who exploit the Indian culture... especially the New Age "I'm a reincarnated Indian warrior princess named ThunderHawk" or "I'm Indian because I took LSD and had a "Vision Quest" and was told by some animal that I'm Indian, even though my grandparents came here  directly from Germany" or some crap like that.  These people have generated a circus-like atmosphere, and it can take away from the legitimacy of those who truly want and need to get back to their true family ties.
So, I don't call myself an Indian because if for some reason it turned out that my grandfather is something else (Mexican or something?), I don't want to be one of those people I detest who simply claim something because they think it's cool or because they like it. 
I do admit though, that I follow as much of the red road as possible from what was taught to me by those who took an interest early on in raising me and caring for me.  They were primarily Lokota, and some Dakota, so naturally I have an innate affection for them and consider them "family".  Due to this, I admit I am truly hoping and praying to discover that he was in fact, of one of these nations.  Not because I "want so bad to be Indian", but because I already have that beginning, and it would be wonderful to truly belong to the very people I "grew up belonging to".   But if not, then that is that. 
I believe people in my situation are far more rare than what people like to think though, as adoption of Indian babies by white people simply is not as common as white new-age people often like to say (I believe this is a story-line that frauds sometimes use to explain why they can't "prove" their Indian status).  That's another reason why I try to be very clear about my situation, because I don't want to be associated with people like that AT ALL.  I am also a scientific writer, and by nature I am very analytical, and I believe in FACTS.  I believe in being honest, and although it may seem "harmless" for someone to misrepresent themselves as Indian, it's just plain dishonesty.  I also think it can become harmful because these people often seek to learn what they need not know, and they in turn use their knowledge to improperly instruct, impress, and influence others, often for status, profit, or sexual favors.  This is disgusting and hurtful to ALL involved.
OK, sorry for rambling.  Thanks :)

[MatoSiWin]

OOPS, one more thing.

I also think it's harmful in the sense that if someone has a question, they would like a legitimate answer, and if someone is misrepresenting themselves on here, there is a possibility that they are giving misinformation.

BUT, that is also why the ORAL tradition is always the better route.  If you are in someone's physical presence, you can take the time to truly get to know them and their character, as well as assess the real depth of their knowledge, and you'll know if they are trustworthy in their information.  Unfortunately I am displaced in Indiana, and the only people around ready with information are frauds like Steve McCollough <ick>.  No one shuold take anything as legitimate or serious without knowing the source, and if the source is a person, you need to research that person's character... with other people you already know are legitimate.  Thanks to those on this website who make it easier by exposing the frauds who have been verified as such.

[wolfhawaii]

I hold truth and honesty in the highest regard; I don't have much use for liars. I also try to take people at their word for who they say they are, but I have been taken in a few times by people who were not who/what they represented themselves to be......that really sucks. I don't really want to turn into someone who forever after looks at the world and people with a jaundiced eye and make it my crusade to "expose" everyone who does things different from me. Obviously there are enough fraudulent folks out there who really need to be called to task. Given enough time and opportunity, it becomes apparent who these people are, and they can be dealt with. I don't really think it is cool to hide behind computer anonymity and take swipes at others here though. Usually the truth will surface in its own time; sometimes it takes a while. Sometimes those who lead the charge to "burn the witches" so to speak turn out to be the worst sort (just look at the govt.)

[Barnaby_McEwan]

That's really funny, I only just now noticed the tiny type "Senior Member" under some names...It seems only to attach those who make the most posts, nothing about quality of posts I don't think.

You're right; it was just based on number of posts, completely automatic. It was a default feature of the forum software, and it is now gone.

[Moma_porcupine]

Thanks to Nighthak for noticing how those old automatic listings of " senior member " might create a misleading impression.  I didn't notice that, but now they are gone ,I'm suprised how that was unconsciously  incorprated into my mental image of who that person is. Thanks to Barnaby for reducing us all to just members with no "status"

« Reply #11
wolfhawaii

Given enough time and opportunity, it becomes apparent who these people are, and they can be dealt with. I don't really think it is cool to hide behind computer anonymity and take swipes at others here though. Usually the truth will surface in its own time; sometimes it takes a while. Sometimes those who lead the charge to "burn the witches" so to speak turn out to be the worst sort (just look at the govt.)

wolfhawaii , people who post and ask questions anonymously is discussed at length in the thread below
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=706.0

You have repeatedly brought this up as part of your objections to my right to ask your freinds questions. I think if you disagree with anonymous people asking questions as a general principle, you should explain your concerns in that thread. Otherwise, as i am an anonymous person , it just feels like an indirect personal attack.

I don't agree with your philosopy that "the truth will rise to the surface in time". If you believe that , this whole message boards purpose would seem to violate this , as we actively expose lies, and don't stand back and let people lie and let the truth reveal itself in it's own time. I understand that in real life this approach can work in some situations, but in cyberspace people don't usually read all of other peoples posts , so if the truth rises in one thread , and the person is allowed to lie or undermine what we do here in other threads without being challenged , often the people who read here won't find the thread where the truth rose and may be misled. 

The idea that the truth and reasonable questions are only welcome if this supports our own members is a key ingrediant of many cults and the type of groups NAFPS works to disempower. If we follow the same practices , we would quickly become one more pschologically unhealthy internet group claiming to be NDN .   

But I do see how asking questions without guidelines can lead to unresolvable bickering  , so maybe what would be helpful is if we came up with some general guidelines as to how to do this and consequences if these guidelines are not followed.

One thing I would suggest is that people raising concerns about another forum members inconsistencies or their approach , should be required to provide a breif quote , reply # and link to the thread where the statment was made that raised their concerns, along with a clear explaination of why this is a concern.

I am noticing that probably 9 out of 10 of the complaints forum members make about other forum members is about stuff that only happened in their own perception or imagination or it is an out right lie. If the moderators insisted people making accusations provide quotes and sources and suspended members who won't do this, it would quickly put a damper on a lot of flaming.

---------
edited to add

As people may say things that raise questions in a thread on another topic, and these discussions can be used to distract from the purpose of the thread, off topic posts questioning members claims or approach could be moved ...  Maybe the thread that already exists on "People Who post in this Forum" could be used for these discussions. Or if the person is in some kind of position of public trust, maybe this could be discussed in their introduction. Or maybe we need a basement thread ...
The suggested guidelines would still apply.
-------

I also think it would be helpful if the moderators would intervene when friends rush in to defend someone they like from reasonable questions.

Unless people have relevent factual information to add,  friends making emotionally based appeals about how he questions aren't fair and the person is such a great person , just confuse the issues and make it personal when it shouldn't be. IMO these defenders should be told to stop - in exactly the same way we tell the supporters of frauds and exploiters to stop.

IMO people who make direct or indirect personal attacks or comments about the character of the person raising the questions should be given one warning to stop and suspended if they won't.  This is an anti fraud group not a clique and no NAFPS member should have to put up with being harrassed or attacked personally for asking reasonable questions about another members claims that do not seem to fit with reality. 

Maybe this approach wouldn't work either for reasons I haven't thought of , but I think it might be an improvement .

Sorry if these suggestions seem like I am being obnoxious and am telling the moderators how to do their job. I feel like the last 3 months I have had a lot of personal experience in dealing with this, I have been pushed into really thinking about how best to deal with it.

If other people have suggestions they think are better I would be interested in hearing about it ...

[Kevin]

I've never had a need for instance to go around telling everyone that I am a former Marine. There is no void in my life over that. Why would some Apache or some Lakota person or some Creek have a need to keep going around telling people who they are?
If somone keeps announcing they are such-and-such and keeps talking from the direct perspective of being such-and-such, it seems apparent to me they are not. Like in poker, about all that can be done is to call their bluff.