bls926
Everyone who comes to NAFPS supposedly "in a good way" is not who they say they are. We've been fooled before, temporarily at least. We've had a "Native American attorney working with the United Nations" who wasn't even a lawyer or Indian. We've had "Representatives" of their Nation who weren't enrolled in or acknowledged by the Nation they claimed to represent. We've had "Diplomats", "Elders", "Activists" who weren't who they said they were. We've learned to be cautious and ask questions.
We also have an astonishing number of people come through here claiming to be a chief and complaining that everyone who doesn't recognize how grand they are is corrupt.
Reply #26
NDN Outlaw
Outrage is probably the healthiest response to oppression.
As someone who has also lived through abuse , I understand it is a healthy impulse to stand up and look the abuser in the eye and say
" You are abusive. I am not acknowledging your power. We are equal"
But when people authorize themselves as a Chief or a Nation, in the vast majority of cases this comes with a lot of problems...
Reply #22
Ardy
I deal with all levels of government, police, & Judiciary on behalf of my people. I provide for my people. More importantly, I receive no funding from any level of government. I am strictly an Independant Nation - an Ally to the Crown. Nation to Nation.
As anyone who has participated here for a while know, there is at least 1000 self proclaimed Chiefs running around, criticizing the Native leaders who don't recognize how entitled they are, and accusing everyone who won't support them as being corrupt... Although these claims are occaisionally justified, the large majority of these people are either exploiters or delusional.
Stepping back from this specific situation, and looking at general principles and the big picture, if we accept the general premise that tribal governments which are funded by non native governments have all been corrupted and therefore have no rightful authority , that conclusion discredits and disempowers pretty much every indigenous Nations internal authority . As indigenous peoples face an ongoing struggle to maintain their rights, and they need political leaders to do this, blanket statements that disempower all these leaders authority does not seem like the best way to serve the Native community.
It seems it would be more constructive to avoid sweeping blanket statements that discredit all federally recognized Native leaders and instead stick to presenting the evidence and looking for solutions to specific problems.
As anyone who has participated here knows, the definitions of who is a Native person is contentious and there is a lot of different opinions on this.
If corruption of all tribal governments which are funded by non native governments is then interpreted as every individual who believes themself to be NDN and who feels unappreciated has the right declare themself a Nation and a Chief unto themselves - it seems obvious to me that the resulting chaos is not going to help First Nations regain respect for their sovriegnty.
When Ardy puts so much emphasis on who she is, and her own importance, for example , by using the title of Chief, it does in my mind detract from whatever legitimate issues she may want to address.
And by douing this she does manage to do a very good imitation of a twinkie. Not saying she actually is, but in cyberspace, that is how she comes across.
One thing I have learned through participating here without offering personal information, is that it's actually more effective to just stay with the issues, and if we are effective at speaking the truth our own personal credentials ( or lack of them ) are pretty much beside the point.
If someone is actually doing good work and speaking the truth on an issue, the fancy titles are completely superfluous, as the truth has the power to stand on it's own feet. It doesn't need to be fancied up by someone claiming themself to be a Chief, or having a mtDNA lineage to a famous person .
And though she may not mean it in this way , some of Ardy's comments sound identical to the claims of John Williams leader of various Acadian Metis organizations, who is identified as undermining respect for First Nations by the Wabanaki Confederacy, in the link below
http://web.archive.org/web/20040120031245/www.wabanakiconfederacy.com/appropriation.htmlReply #16
Clan mother
As for the Acadians - most have Indian Blood & can prove ties to the Treaties, unlike most registered Indians who rely upon their INAC Status Cards.
John Williams quoted from the link below
None can supply documentation that proves they are even pre-depotation treaty heirs, we all do in spades, none can link themselves to Wabanaki Confeceracy Chiefs, we all do, hell! They can't even prove they are Indian with genealogy.
Reply #16
Clan mother
As for the reservation with their paternalistic white surnames - they all have white blood in their veins as they all have varying degrees of Indian Blood Quantum.
John Williams
As you can see, mixed breeds will never be accepted by status Indians unless they can provide financial benefits to them ! (heaven-forbid anyone suggesting that these "status" Indians are themselves mixed breeds!)
Reply #16
Clan mother
I know more about the history, genealogy, customs & ways of the Tribe of MicMac than anyone.
John Williams
I know more about Mi'kmaq history and culture than all of them put together, I speak the old mi'kmaq, maliseet and penobsciot trade language better than all of them!
http://web.archive.org/web/20051214211848/http://www.nbami.com/NEWSID10.shtmlMore on this is in the thread below
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1187.0So this is some of the politics that got me wondering about Ardy's personal claims and her approach.
I hope this clarifies part of what got the twinkie alarms going off, and again I apologize if some of my suspisions were misplaced.
