Definition of "fraud"

[MattOKC]

I'm wondering what the prevailing definition of "fraud" would be. Clearly, the ideal would be a recognized Tribal person imparting authentic teachings and insights that are appropriate to be shared, and who is acknowledged by his/her community as a competent teacher.

But for example, here are several possible scenarios:

1) A person who is authentically Native writes or teaches concepts that are not accurate traditions of his/her tribal background;
2) A person claims Native ancestry who does not actually possess it.

But the second scenario leads to other possibilities:

3) What about the non-Native who is honest about their non-Indian ethnicity, yet what they write/say about native spirituality is actually pretty accurate and reasonable? Suppose this person has found a genuine way to incorporate the traditional spirituality of a particular Native people into his/her own life, and they remain honest about who they are, but write openly about their experiences. If they are accurate and appropriate, are they engaging in permissible "non-fraudulent" behavior? Can we accept non-Natives teaching our traditions, if they clearly have a competent understanding and ethical approach toward our ways? Obviously there are non-Natives who do, and are skilled and proper teachers, so if we see a non-Native writing about sweats, pipes, etc., and they doa good job with it, are they "cool?"

4) What about the non-Native person who is DISHONEST about their ethnicity, trying to "pass" as Indian, yet what they write/say is actually accurate and insightful? I know this is rare, but just hypothetically--what if the source is a person who fakes WHO they are, but WHAT they express is actually well-informed and, by some miracle, a positive, truthful representation of a tribal spirituality? This becomes more difficult, because we would have to distinguish "fraud" based on whether it designates the person or the teachings. It's hard to attack teachings that might be good and genuine as "fraud," simply because the person misrepresents him/herself. Do we split hairs and say, "they're good teachings, but from a goofball"? Or do we throw out all of it--the baby and the bathwater--to say the whole thing is bull, knowing it would also be condemning teachings that were actually good and accurate?

[Moma_porcupine]

Hi MattOKC and Welcome

You ask some good questions and I hope other people who know more than I do will share their thoughts,  but for what it's worth here is some of mine ....

It sounds like you are considering how the term fraud would apply to different areas such as identity , knowledge , and authorization .

I think there is often a lot of gray areas between people who are outright frauds and the ideal you described.

If a tribe is willing to give out this information, it should be relatively easy to figure out if someone claiming enrollment in a tribe is being truthful, but if people don't specifically say they are enrolled, it seems like it gets a lot murkier. 

People often claim to be "Cherokee" or some other tribal identity, when what they mean is that they believe they descend from someone who was a member of one of these tribes , and for some reason , which may or may not be valid, they believe it's OK to claim this as their own identity.

This can be a gray area because  there is differing opinions as to the amount of emphasis unenrolled people should put on one part of their ancestry . There is sometimes legitimate tribal leaders and Elders who, under some circumstances, would support these descendents in their claim to a Native identity .

Then there is the problem that a lot of perfectly nice people were told by someone in their family there was some Native ancestry back there and they repeat this without it even occuring to them that maybe they should be skeptical about the story about Princess Cornblossom.... Most of these people don't try to exploit this aspect of their identity , so even though they may be mistaken, or a bit warped in how much emphasis they put on this, unless there is also exploitation , a sense of entitlement , or a stubron  avoidence of the truth, I don't think these people are usually frauds.

When it comes to knowledge, even Native people who have a lot of real traditional knowledge can also have unusual personal ideas. A recent example of this is the Camel Eye Treaty which is now listed under frauds, even though some of the people who have been sucked into believing this are enrolled Mohawk people. So I guess it's possible for a belief to be untrue , but the person who believes this to be completely legit.

I'm not sure what you mean when you ask about competant respectful non Native people teaching about some things. It seems if a person was competent and respectful , they would know some things are not rightly taught outside of the context of the entire culture, and they would know they couldn't provide this, so if they were competent that wouldn't try to teach it in the first place.   

Probably one clue that a non native person is teaching something they shouldn't be, would be if they were teaching something or performing a ceremony which some Elders say should only be taught or conducted in the original language.

Authorization is also a difficult question because it seems there is often different opinions within a tribe about who should be authorized to do what. A good example is the many Native people who disagree with some of the people Leonard Crow Dog has authorized to lead ceremonies.

On the other side of the spectrum is someone like the author Rupert Ross. He is a lawyer and after numerous experiences with Native people who became involved in the non native legal system , he wrote a book explaining what he had come to understand about the Native world veiw, and what happens when this world veiw has to function in a society where the rules have been created by  non native people. The book does seem to be quite accurate and is written from the standpoint of an honest concern for people who's cultural values often puts them in a situation where they are at a disadvantage in the non native justice system. I don't think Rupert Ross is anywhere near being a fraud, and with indigenous peoples being so overwhelmingly outnumbered by non native people , I think non native people do need to have a role in teaching and offering insight into what creates problems for the Native community.

The way this message board is set up there is a catagory for frauds and research needed. The catagory frauds could probably be rightly subdivided into delusional / mentally ill, / exploiters who don't know any better/ , and exploiters who are outright liars who don't care / and people who are dangerously abusive. I guess what they mostly have in common , is in some way,  what is being claimed, is seriously disconnected from reality.   

Personally I would be more comfortable if there was more objective criteria in the definition of fraud -  but many seemingly clear cut definitions can be complicated by other considerations . For example, it's generally agreed on that  charging for ceremony is almost always a sign there is a serious problem , but what if the ceremony is part of a package which includes meals or accomadation or some form of genuine psychotherapy ....? What then ...? and here is where the problems in making a definition come in...

What I am saying here is just my own understanding of this , and much of what I think has been formed from participating here . Hopefully some other people will offer their own perspective or be able to answer your other questions -.   

[MattOKC]

Those are very insightful responses, and they do help me. I think, for example, that one attribute of a competent non-native teacher would be that s/he abides by the boundaries pertaining to what can and cannot be talked about outside certain settings. Some Native religious traditions and implements are not setting-specific, such as the Pipe, while others are, such as kachina dances and sun dances. So perhaps a non-Native could be considered a source of appropriate, correct information about the Pipe, having been effectively taught well and found to have a good understanding (this is just an example; I'm not implying that I have a specific situation in mind).

A follow-up to this might be, then, who are some of the other non-Native writers, teachers, etc., who have generally been found to be decent and accurate with their understanding of Native spiritual matters? I can think of a Canadian author who did a fantastic job, for example, and I'm sure there must be others.

[Moma_porcupine]

So perhaps a non-Native could be considered a source of appropriate, correct information about the Pipe,

This is just my gut feeling, but generally speaking , I don't think non native people have any place teaching any details about how to utilize Native Spiritual traditions. Even if they are competent, why would they need to do this?

On the other hand , you don't need to be a surgeon to know that a kitchen knife and fork are not proper surgical tools, and you don't need to be a surgeon to tell others that if someone claiming to be a surgeon offers to operate on them in a back alley using a knife and fork they would be well advised to run...