First off i agree there is some individuals and groups of Native people who aren't recognized who should be, and if people wanted to discuss a specific instance of this - that would be interesting , and it wouldn't seem like there was some other agenda.
Okay, I think here you are understanding, or at least already am familiar with some of the things that make me object to certain words and things said on this site.
Now of course us coming to an understanding on how the we both each view this circumstance and finding a common ground on it is the thing to shoot for.
It seems to me , this one example was chosen because people wanted to take this situation and then try to transfer the unfairnes of this onto completely unrelated situations.
No I don't really think so, but when you put it this way I do realize and understand the things said in this thread that would make you see it that way. I think some of the points made on this thread have taken things that way, but I don't think it was intentional.
It does seem to me though that often times you and others here do sorta blur together defending sovereignty, traditions, and identity as if the are all the same things. It in theory is/was supposed to go hand in hand I suppose, but though tribes have always been sovereign and it was never given to our peoples when we already had it; however tribal governments often times often times come in conflict with the wishes of their traditional people.
It is my understanding that Dickie Wilson of Pine Ridge back in the 1970's, and his regime were, oppressing traditional people within his nation. So though I am in now way attacking tribal sovereignty, I do say that often times in the both past and present tribal governments serve the purposes of the Federal Government and not the well being of their own tribal members.
I bring all of this up, because as I said above I feel you blur all these things together when they are often times not really tied in as maybe they should be.
You speak as if I am saying these so called PODIA's should be allowed to push themselves into tribal membership or ceremony. I have never advocated or said any such thing. Nor do I see them as this great threat as you try and say they are.
If you can point to me in the direction of anything going through the House, Senate, or any federal office in which some group of PODIA people are getting legislation or something related to it in which they are getting themselves forced into tribal membership; then I will be obliged to see things you way when you speak of this threat.
On the contrary I do see many organizations popping up all over the country like Citizens For Equal Rights or whatever they are called that are trying to have tribal Sovereignty removed completely, and are probably one of the biggest growing threats to our nations to date. They have nothing to do with this PODIA issue, and are just Eurocentric hateful whites for the most part, who think the United States should do away with tribal recognition completely, and terminate everyone.
One thing I was taught, and I do believe I brought this up in the EMC thread, was that I do believe you need the permission from elders of the nation who's land you wish to do a ceremony on. I also was taught that you should get permission from the elders of your own tribe to. In saying this I did point out this was one place where I knew Ben Carnes needed to fix the situation.
However in regards to this all I don't see any of this as PODIA's demanding they should be allowed in ceremony, nor do I feel they should go demanding it either. If somebody like this demands anything, or goes off and tries to do it themselves after being turned away then they came in a bad way in the first place. In going off and doing it themselves I don't see it as a thin blood,PODIA, or unrecognized person issue. What it becomes is an exploiter/cultural appropriation issue, and even full bloods can do that; it should be called an exploiter issue and not a PODIA one.
As I understand it, the main purpose of this message board is to educate people about respecting the right of indigenous people to control , maintain and protect their own identities , resources and cultures . In order to do this some protective boundaries are necessary, and one of the most primary boundaries is the right of indigenous communities to define their own membership, and pick their own spiritual and political leaders.
I don't think anyone is challenging any of this really. I do think there are some Grey area's in topics that concern these issues and sometimes it may seem as though that some who do point them out are challenging it all in a harmful fashion when that may not be their intention.
What concerns me is it seems some people are repeatedly undermining respect for those protective boundaries by smearing tribes who choose to have some protective boundaries by trying to associate them with unrelated instances of wrong doing and repeatedly suggesting the way tribes decide to define themselves is wrong, and should not be respected. .
Do you respect everything that the United States and it's leaders do? I agree the tribes should not be associated with unrelated issues, however not every decision a tribal council makes is a good one, even in regards to how they define themselves...dis enrollments are perfectly good evidence of that.
Rattlebone , you say you don't like New Age exploiters, but I notice almost all your posts are advocating for PODIAs having a right to be included ....
Some of these threads are below...
http://newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1835.0
http://newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1632.15
No I was not doing so in such a blanket way as you try and make it seem here. I am reading you saying this as if I am saying that anybody that comes and says " I have some ggggg grandmother" and therefore should be seen as Indian. What I was doing was the same as I am in this thread and saying that people should not be judged on BQ, and like the word PODIA isn't really traditional.
The difference between you and I in this topic is that I do not view people as Indian or part Indian....I view somebody as simply Indian or non Indian. To me the word PODIA is sorta like calling somebody "part Indian," and I don't view people in such a way regardless of BQ or skin color.
Plus given history and things that have happened I don't view that a person must do A,B,C and to be considered Indian. The world is way more complicated then that. Such is the case of my friend who's tribe once occupied the Bay area of California. He looks mixed, and that might be from Mexican blood I dunno. I don't know if he is "culturally Indian" as in knowing the culture of his tribe. For all I know he might even be Christian on top of it all. Thing is he is known and recognized by the Indian people in my area as Indian, and I see him the same way. I don't need any tribal or federal government to tell me if what I think of him is true or not.
Though you are polite and you come across as someone who is taking a principled stand on certain issues, reading through your posts i'm still not clear what those principles are.
I have come to a place here where I do recognize your reason for using the word PODIA. It might be a an easy way to say things instead of having to say "somebody that claims a gggg grandmother and thinks they are Indian," and things of that nature. Myself personally, I would just consider them non Indian and say that. I would feel that using a word such as PODIA I would look as though I am condemning somebody for being mixed or what not. As I said I simply view somebody as Indian based on them being a member of my community, or some other community. If they are just claiming some distant relative they can't prove, a tribe they have no ties to, and have no ties to any Indian community; then to me they are simply NON Indian.
The word PODIA as I understand is supposed to mean "Persons OF Distant Indian Ancestry," and yet I have recently read Dr. Al use it to explain Mexicans that are not familiar with their Indian culture and try to claim it.
Would you refer to a full blood raised by whites who does not know their culture as a PODIA when their ancestry is not distant? A Mexican is not distant in ancestry either the majority of the time now are they when the majority of their blood is Indian?
So your word PODIA is being used inter-changeably now for unrelated circumstances. If this full blood and his Mexican counterparts are not really Indian because they don't know their culture, then do they become Indian if and when they learn it?
If a Mexican can be a PODIA, and learn their true culture and thus become an Indian. Shouldn't that be the same as some low BQ person you would call a PODIA? In that regards they should never be referred to that again as they are Indian and part of their community now aren't they?
Sure some lower BQ won't experience most of the racism a fullblood person will, and maybe that should be the only thing really pointed out. I have had conversations with people off the net about circumstances such as the differences in life experience in regards to low BQ and High BQ, but it was not meant to be an insult for either side. It was about understanding and life experience.
On one hand you make a lot of statements suggesting people or tribal policies that exclude PODIAs in any way are mean and a form of persecution , but on the other hand you back peddle and say you aren't thinking just anybody with a story of a gr gr gr grandparent being NDN should be included.
You must have not read or understand what I said in my last post.
I did point out how tribes like the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma have no BQ requirements and so they are enrolling people that do have gggggggg grandmother stories literally if they can "prove it." I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with it necessarily, but I do feel that these tribes that enroll in such a way should at least have these born today Indians have to learn about the history of their tribe. I think they should even make them take language classes before they can enroll, and I think they should maybe make them pay for their own classes. The United States and other nations have requirements before citizenship don't they?
Even in tribes that have no BQ requirements I do believe a number of them do have clauses in their tribal rules that say that only person's of certain BQ are entitled to certain benefits including the right to run for tribal council. I have absolutely no problem with any of that either whatsoever.
So that in mind, as I pointed out to Laurel, we are a political class often and not a typical minority. The definition of who is and who is not an Indian varies very widely, and often times on this site I do see people being very rigid in regards to it.
You yourself speak of Indigenous culture and community in a sort of rigid way, and at times almost speak of "recognition" as an absolute. There are tribes on the east coast that have no language left, virtually none of their original culture if any at all, and are low BQ in general. In those cases such as in the Pequot in Conn who even Native critics say lack Pequot language or culture on top of low BQ; where do we draw the line and who has the right to draw such lines?
And then you backpeddle on that and say that you don't think those people should be excluded either if they seem nice and just want to learn.
I have never back peddled on anything. If you really understood what I was saying in my last post, and in much of what I have said in this one you would understood that. If a person comes to some elder or spiritual leader in a good way and wishes to learn, it is the choice of that elder or spiritual leader to teach them. I have seen it done many times, and have even seen leaders allow NON Indians into sweats with them on a regular basis. All of this of course has a way more then somebody being "being nice and just wanting to learn."
I basicly agree with you that the definition of who is a member of a Native community isn't always defined by BQ , and can include people in some ways who are not officially recognized through enrollment.
For example , I know someone who is 1/4 BQ . Their parent who was 1/2 left when they were a baby and they were raised by their entirely non native parent with no connection to a native community . They don't make a big deal out of this. I was aquainted with them more than 10 years before it ever came up in a conversation. They are probably are eligible to be enrolled , but they say they don't think it would be right for them to take advantage of that, because they don't really have a connection with a Native community.
On the other hand, I know someone else who is blond blue eyed with a BQ somewhere between 1/16 and 1/32. They were raised in large part by relatives who had married back into the tribe. They aren't enrolled and they would have to be 1/4 BQ to enroll , so they are no where near what they would need to do this. But they grew up in a native community and still have many relatives in this community . This person is mostly non native by blood but their primary identity is that they are NDN . And even though this person is blond and blue eyed I have never heard any Native people dispute this , or dispute their right to participate in some aspects of the culture.
So in this statement you are recognizing the Grey area's I have long pointed out, and how there really can not be a rigid definition of whom is Indian or not based on circumstances such as these. There are so many more broader circumstances then even these you pointed out, and we could discuss them forever.
There is however some things this person is excluded from. I guess they could get mad that this isn't fair, but in traditional societies lots of people are excluded from lots of things. Men are excluded from womans ceremonies, women are excluded from mens ceremonies, certain clans are excluded from ceremonies belonging to other clans ect ect ect.
This has to do what with PODIA or BQ exactly? You are talking about traditional things here, and even you yourself realize that there are cases where somebody as low as 1/32 can traditionally been seen as Indian and participate in the ceremonies of their tribe? So this really has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
What I do see though in some agreement with you is Americans, taking American civil rights ideas and trying to apply them to Native society and that simply does not work. Have seen a mostly full blooded Gay man, and what seemed like a mostly full blooded transvestite man think they could try and dance in women's dances at a local powwow. Sure these are not traditional ceromonies, and are just powwow dances, but I think we see eye to eye on things such as this.
Still this has nothing to do with PODIA's or BQ unless a tribe has a specific rule that such people can not participate in certain ceremony.
Respecting these boundaries is about respecting the structure of the culture, not that people are being pushed out or persecuted. This person I know is respectful and accepts that. From what I have seen Native people tend to be really generous about including people , and what upsets me is the only people I know of that feel "pushed out" are people who wrongly try to push their way in. I'm sure there is exceptions to this, but when I see you suggesting these pushy people are actually being persecuted by being excluded , it seems really unfair in the large majority of cases.
Where have I ever out right advocated that these "pushy people" should be allowed in?
I have argued on behalf of these "exceptions" that even you point out and nothing more.
If you think that mixed people, even those who are enrolled are not persecuted or treated very badly for being mixed, then it would make me wonder if you are part of any Indian community. I know of a young girl who is treated very badly by her own relatives because of it. I can name countless examples of it I see all the time in my life.
What you don't seem to understand is the main reason PODIAs are excluded isn't because people are being mean and persecuting them, it's because including them creates a lot of very real problems.
You keep saying this, and I fail to see what you are talking about. With all the major problems in Indian country, PODIA's is no place on the list of anything important in any sort of major way.
Perhaps you mean in regards to ceremony and things of that nature, but I do not see PODIA's as the problem. What I see is the real problem is the exploiters and the people they victimize which might be people looking to reconnect for whatever reason.
If PODIA's are taking advantage of in these cases it is not they that are the problems, but the exploiter's themselves. Blaming a PODIA for what is done to them is not unlike trying to get rid of the patient and not the disease that ills them.
One of the roots of these problems is that PODIAs come from a mainly non native cultural perspective which assumes individual accomplishment and personal satisfaction are more important than serving the long term health of the whole community, and the way to achieve this is through being pushy.
The exact same thing can be said of Natives that are raised in NON native families, or simply don't care about their culture. This has nothing to do with their degree of Indian blood or the lack there of. It is more a situation of needing to unlearn what has been taught by mainstream western society, and learning the values of an Indigenous community and people.
So in this regards to place blame on somebody specifically for the lost connections or degree of Indian blood is a major fallacy here.
You are born and raised in a culture, or you learn it. This doesn't have a thing to do with DNA.
Another thing i notice which I find disturbing is though you seem to be repeatedly advocating that PODIAs should have access to learn about and participate in traditional cultures and ceremonies, when people ask questions and are reluctent to support people using ceremonies in ways that may go against the decisions of the traditional leaders who are trying to protect these ceremonies , you have no problem trying to discredit these people who are concerned about cultural protection by pointing out they appear to be thin blooded. (such as in the thread on Ben Carnes )
http://newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1655.165
I don't feel comfortable with this , especially as you seem to have a lot to say about the rights of PODIAs when it comes to having access to whatever parts of a culture they want.
Hypocrisy isn't it?
Thing is was I really saying things in such a way as you say I was, or was I pointing out the hypocrisy of those individuals? I think you should go back and read what I was saying a lot closer as what I was saying against them.
Let's look at my exact words there as you have pointed out...
" I do believe that both Walks and yourself are far less then 1/4 native by blood. As a matter of fact as already pointed out, and acknowledged by Walks himself; he is not enrolled, and probably has no actual proof that he is native whatsoever.
It is my understanding that you claim to be Cherokee, but grew up in New Mexico or something like that.
So since this is a point you feel is valid here in this investigation of Mr. Carnes, how do you justify yourself claiming to be Native and being involved in any ceremony?
I have seen pictures of both yourself and Walks at the Carnes residence, and of course Walks looks white and to date has no proof of his claims to being Indian other then some family story.
So how was Walks being there not a problem for you then, as it is now considering he is very much one of these PODIA people you speak of?
If Walks does not fall into this PODIA category, then I would like to hear an explanation of how he does not fall into this category, and what your definition of a PODIA since you are making this aspect of the Carnes's behavior an issue.
I do not view this as sidetracking on my part since it is a valid statement that you have presented that should be asked of you "the accuser" as well since I do know about both Walks and yourself."
I said these things because Tachia Hawks is friends with Walks whom in that thread admitted he had no proof of who he said he was, was not enrolled, and was "told stories of being Cherokee as a child." Isn't that a typical story coming from one of your PODIA's who says they are Indian and want to "reconnect.?"
Ironically when Walks, a "self identified Cherokee" was going to a Choctaw man running Lakota style Sun Dances, Tachia had no objections to any of it. In fact as can be seen she at first came into that thread in support of Ben Carnes. So it was okay for her PODIA friend to go the Ben Carnes to learn back when they "were all still friends."
Then yes I pointed out that I believe she was less then 1/4 herself. I said this because I have seen her, and picture of her parents, grandparents; all of which did not look Indian to me in the slightest.
Should I be judging her or her family as Indians based on their looks or pictures? Going by my own words in this thread, no I should not be and have always been an advocate against that.
However she in the thread you linked here said something I qouted about "podia's infiltrating ceremonies."
So why does she not see her friend Walks as a PODIA infiltrating ceremony as these people she spoke of? Did she talk to each one of them on an individual basis, and how well does she know any of them?
How do we not know somebody would see both her and Walks at a ceremony and just assume they are PODIA exploiters out to infiltrate just based on their "looks?"
I was told she has never attended a ceremony at the EMC, so there is a question of how she can be certain of anything at all she is saying in these regards.
So I hope you now got my point over there, and now realize your words here and the link to that thread was you grossly misunderstanding my point.
I also notice you didn't answer any of the numbered questions i asked you . The reason I asked those questions is if you did , I think the lack of integrity in your line of reasoning would have become obvious and I am guessing that is why you side steped this.
No, I ignored them because you like myself have or had gone over a lot of those in this thread, or now have in more detail. So of those questions could have more then one answer from both you and I if you really think about it. Some of them could have the same Grey area's we have went over here already, and answering them would be redundant.
Sorry Rattlebone, as much as i appreciate your politeness, and I am willing to assume you mean well and haven't completely thought this through, it seems to me the only "principal" you are defending is that you and your friends should be able to do whatever you like, and anyone who disagrees or tries to put some limits on this will be demonized and discredited.
What friends are these that you speak of. I wasn't aware that you know any of my friends off of the internet?
As for my online friends....that thread is research needed and nothing has been proven either way now has it? Besides I have even in this thread and that thread pointed out a few flaws in what the Carnes are doing in regards to not having Ute permission on their traditional lands.Then my biggest objection was to the hypocrisy of a few individuals and their statements that I have now pointed out here as well, and my knowledge of other issues that you don't know about surrounding them that does come into play in that situation.
Of course this thread is not about that one, and it is kind of wrong for you to mention it here since I will get in trouble for speaking of it, and you will not.
Why are you asking ime and Al what our tribe is and if we are enrolled?
Well both you and Al seem to think it is pertinent for you both to know the details of the lives of everyone and if they are enrolled etc. I guess that comes into play for you to know what that person knows or doesn't know...if what they say is valid.
Yet both of you are a bit mysterious, and a lot of that causes great controversy about both of you.
Besides knowing more about both of you would help to understand more of where you are coming from and why you have some of your points of view. Having the degree or that degree doesn't mean anything t me, and nor does who you have both worked with. That doesn't say exactly who or what you both are.
Plus my question of enrollment of Dr. Al comes into play with some of his statements that are rigid in terms of who is Indian or not, and how they related to being recognized or not.
I do for one believe Dr.Al is an Indian without any doubt. I do agree with his work on here and in the real world, no question there. I just think that he like you uses double standards sometimes that you don't realize often it.
As i want to remain anonymous I don't say much about myself, and if i am talking about an issue which concerns a specific tribe , like a librarian i try to provide links to a credible source so people can see where recognized Native communities stand on an issue. People outside these communities who want to redefine things to suit themselves do get annoyed with me for insisting the tribes that were strong enough to be federally recognized need to be the ones creating these definitions however, I don't see where I have ever created my own definitions, though i do try and explain these definitions to people and why respecting these definitions which are created by indigenous communities is important.
I understand that, but according to Dr. Al you don't have that right to being anonymous as he does not recognize that right for others on here. That was already stated and demonstrated on this site.
Even if it isn't always perfect, what seems important to me is that it is the tribes and people enrolled in them who are selected as leaders by their own people that create these definitions , and not someone outside the tribes.
I agree with you for the most part, but sometimes it does work like the justice system....every once in a while the innocent will be convicted, and even executed.
My disagreements with this have little to do with PODIA's, but rather with the federal government and the problems it created that have lead to some of these circumstances.
I don't think people need to be enrolled to support tribes in maintaining their rightful control over their membership , resources and culture.
I don't either, but I don't think NON's should be involved in defining who is or is not Indian. The feds have made a mess out of that already.
A tribe near me just dis enrolled half of it's membership, and I don't think anyone should be supporting that.
