"you ain't indian if you get kicked out of your tribe"

[koyoteh]

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.

[mamaduck33]

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.

[Laurel]

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?

[Rattlebone]

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.

   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.

  "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.

 

"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.

[Laurel]

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.

[Moma_porcupine]

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 ...   

[bls926]

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. 

[koyoteh]

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.

[koyoteh]

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?

[Laurel]

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.

[bls926]

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.

[earthw7]

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?

[Rattlebone]

oops hit the post button instead of preview...my appologies.
 

[koyoteh]

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?

[Rattlebone]

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. 


 

 

"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?

  "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.

  "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?

  "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.

  "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.


 

"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.

 

"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.

"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.


 

"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?