Passing as Native Musicians

[BlackWolf]

Whitewolf said

As I understand the IACA, and somebody please correct me if I am wrong, a non-native is not prohibited from making any native styled art or craft as long as they do not put "NDN Made" on it.  I have seen several trading posts where both genuine native crafts and non-native made crafts are sold.  Only the native made crafts bear the NDN Made" tag along with the artists' enrollment numbers.

I think in a lot of cases, the general public who in most cases are ignorant about American Indians to begin with don’t really pay attention as to whether or not something says “American Indian made”, or Native style.  So many of these fakes and frauds get around the law that way.  If you go into a vendor’s booth and you see dream catchers, turquoise necklaces, beadwork, and other craft work, most people could really care less because they just want the best bargain.  So even though some vendors follow the law, they are still being disingenuous to a certain degree. In these cases they are still taking away from American Indian Artist who in most cases grew up in their communities and learned their trades through their families.  These authentic American Indian artists are being cut out of the market by to many people with vague stories of Cherokee princesses in their family.  Not to mention the fact that the Indian Arts and Crafts Act is rarely enforced. 

[Rattlebone]

Y'all are missing the point. Rattle, because he thinks one drop of Indian blood makes you Indian

  Nice insult and the putting of words in my mouth there bls926, now do me a favor and find  where I have ever said such a thing in those exact words. I have never said such a thing even as opposed to the concept of BQ as I am. In regards to who is NDN and who is not, I am very complex in my explanations of it, just as I am fair about it.

 You on the other hand are rigid in such a way and put people in boxes that it makes me wonder if your only real interaction with NDN people is on the internet.

 Since my first interactions with you on here, you have always tried to come at me like you are some sort of authority, and that everyone should bow down to because of it.

 Well my friend let me make something very clear to you hear, and hopefully you will remember it and it was cause a lot less friction between us.

 In terms of real life interaction with an NDN community and being known and accepted as such, I for one am. Can you say the same about yourself?

 Before developing very serious health problems, I routinely attended sweats here in California with a well known elder who has now passed. Ironically, some of the things he taught me you try to contradict by arguing BQ in such a way that ignores things that have to do with divinity.

 In terms of community recognition versus legal definition there are areas that cause very critical grey areas. However when it comes to community recognition, I routinely see well known elders and well respected NDN people accept and consider people who are not enrolled and might come from some story about not being able to prove who they as NDN even with those stories, because of their very good and honorable interaction with this NDN community for many years. Perhaps if those same people ventured onto a site like this, a person such as yourself would try to tell them who they can or can not say they are. I doubt the NDN community around here is very much different then many others in the US and Canada. That is why I often wonder if you interact with NDN people off of the net, or maybe you do and are soo afraid that some fraud might read about such things happening that you do not speak of it.

 Let there be no doubt in your mind that I do not believe that just because somebody has one drop of NDN blood in their veins that I see them as such. It's just that I try to be fair about things, and judge people from what I have seen and learned in my life, and unlike you I don't put people in rigid little boxes.

 I am all for hunting down frauds and fakes, but I am not going to engage in witch hunts or come at people who might have legitimate claims to who they are in such a way as you do, and try to tell them because the same US government that has done so much damage to NDN people does not recognize them as such, that they have no right to claim to be so.

 I recognize in life and in this world there is a balance to everything, and I try my best to think in such a way and be fair with other human beings.

 As far as book education versus real world experience. I have never claimed to be any sort of expert or traditional person. However I will acknowledge in my life I have been blessed to know and learn from many, and those things I have learned I try my best to use in my judgment of other people in regards to who is right or wrong, NDN or NON NDN. So yes I do have real world knowledge and experience. Come out to California some time and I can gladly prove it.

 Then with me there is the issue of book learned things. Though by my grammatical mistakes etc it is probably obvious that I have no degree, but that does not mean I did not attend college. I entered college with the intent of getting into journalism, and my mother told me there was this well known and famous NDN woman on campus and to be sure to take her classes. That woman was of course Wendy Rose, and I did as my mother told me and took her classes, and Wendy became a personal hero of mine. I excelled in her classes and learned so much from her. Later when Wendy became ill and didn't teach, I took the classes of a local Yokut educator by the name of kathy Lewis, whom if you did a google on her name would find that she is been locked in one of the recognition disputes with her own people for a long time now. All of this could be proven with my school records.

 So point of telling you that is to let you know when it comes to legal, historical, technical things spoken on this board and others; I do know what I am talking about most the time, or at least have a very good understanding of things. When I don't is when I will listen or ask questions.

I really don't understand who you are or think you are, but quite frankly I don't care. For somebody who is actually a Cherokee person who's family fell through the cracks, I really don't understand why you seem so hellbent on making sure that people with legitimate claims to being NDN are denied that right to say and proudly acknowledge that and be who they are. Sure there are laws and area's of respect some people who are not enrolled should follow, but you seem hellbent on trying to tell them they can't even acknowledge they are NDN people. It's odd to me when people have that line of thinking consider there are people in tribes with no BQ cutoff that are probably way less attached to their people then some who are not enrolled, and yet just because they have legal status they are allowed to call themselves NDN due to the law when in reality they are not in soo many ways.

 Maybe because of your family history and what I believe you said they did in terms of assimilation, you feel everyone is like your family; of course that would be you  using transference and putting your life on that of others and their families, and that is just wrong.


 There are people I greatly admire and respect on this board. Two of them are Dr. Al and Momma Porcupine,even if I had once had issues with them and disliked them. Both of them I believe have taken the time to get to know me at least just a little bit, and neither of them try to talk down to me like you do. In fact though Momma Porcupine said she usually does not agree with me on things, she has said something to me that she still likes to read my perspective on things. To me that was an honor and a compliment.

 The person I admire the most on here though is Blackwolf. When I read his posts and his perspectives I see a man who judges people just as critically as he does fairly. It's obvious to me by his posts that he is who he says he is, and is obviously connected to his people. There have been times I have spoken to him in private when I had questions about things, and some of those times he has agreed with things I have been taught by elders here, even if they are not from his people. At those times, it lets me know that I am not wrong or totally wrong about things, and that my understanding of things is not way off base.

 You however are not somebody I respect, and that is because you say next to nothing about yourself, and yet try to talk down to me and others like you are some sort of authority.

If you want my respect or wish me to speak to respectfully, then never try to talk down to me like you do, or do as you have now done and put words in my mouth that I have never said. I will never accept that from you, or that your opinion on things is some how higher or better then mine. Your opinion is just that, your opinion.

 

bls926:I'm not saying someone can't write about their life. Anyone can write anything they want. What I am saying is that someone who is not an enrolled member of a recognized First Nation should not claim that they are a Native American author. It's no different than someone who is not recognized creating a piece of jewelry, weaving a basket, or making a piece of pottery and calling it American Indian. No different than these guys we've been talking about putting Lakota on their music. If you aren't Indian, don't market your creations as Native American.

 There is a difference though. A person "creates" artwork, but doesn't create their life, ancestry, or experiences.

 Sure there are people like you have mentioned such as Nasdijj/Timothy Barrus' whom were nothing more then fakes and frauds, but I have already mentioned I am not talking about him. I am talking about people with legitimate claims to who they are.

 Let's take you for an example. Let's say that despite not being enrolled your family maintained themselves as Cherokee people to the present by at least carrying on whatever ways they could over the generations. Let's say they experiences hardship and racism because of.

 Then let's say one of the people in your family or even yourself had a very interesting life based on those experiences as a Cherokee person and wrote a book about it. Since you and your family are indeed in my opinion and probably yours, Cherokee people; should they be legally barred from writing as such?

 I am guessing you would probably say no since you think enrollment is the absolute standard for being NDN and having the right to say as such; however I do not.

 What I will say here though and strongly emphasis, is that never in this thread have I made any such argument that anyone with a drop of NDN blood is NDN or should be allowed to make NDN art or music ect.

 What I have been talking about is non recognized people with legitimate claims to who they are.

bls926:There are exceptions to the law. If you are accepted by your Nation, whether enrolled or not, you are permitted to advertise your work as American Indian with their endorsement. Anyone who is truly connected to their people, should be able to get their blessing and market themselves as Native.

 Totally agree with you here, which is why my entire argument has been people with legitimate claims, and not anyone claiming some ancestry they can not prove as you have so wrongly put in my mouth.

 However I would like to add here that in places such as California there are entire tribes and bands who are very much NDN people who have no recognition from the state of federal government.

I once posted up a link and some other things in which a man who was next to full blooded was barred from having eagle feathers because his tribe fell into this position. In fact the court acknowledged he was "Indian for some purposes, but not for others." So in that case, if he was barred from practicing his own religion, then I doubt they would let him make artwork as well. I don't know but that seems likely considering one of his legal rights under the constitution was barred due to lack of federal status.

 I happen to know people like that off the net since I live in California around many bands who are legitimately NDN people, but have no status.

 

I'm not saying someone can't write about whatever they want. I definitely don't believe in censorship. What I am saying is that if you aren't a citizen of a First Nation, you shouldn't be able to market your writing as Native American. There isn't any difference between baskets, blankets, jewelry, or a novel. All are expressions of art. Truth in advertising. Anyone ever hear of that

 Again, as I have pointed out to you already; I agree with  unless a person has legitimate claims to being NDN regardless if not enrolled.

 There is at least one author that I know of who was most possibly not enrolled, and does a very fine job of writing about things that are native subject matter. He does not "speak for all Indian people," and was a critically acclaimed and well known writer in the native community.

He of course was Louis Owens. Now maybe he was enrolled and I do not know about it, but at one time I do know he states that at least half of his family was not on the dawes rolls, but did show up on the Oklahoma Indian census of 1910.

 Never the less in his book mixed blood messages he does a very good job at talking about people and family who are legitimately NDN, but do not show up on any kind of records. These are not people who "hid out on the trail of tears" as some twinkies claim to be the reason why they are not enrolled, but rather NDN people who lived in Indian territory which is now known as Oklahoma.


 

One more time . . . and I swear this is the last time I'm going to try to make y'all understand

 Again, I want to ask you who exactly you are to try and make anyone understand that people with legitimate claims to who they are must not acknowledge that?

 Sure I agree with you in regards to phonies,and people with ggggggg grandma stories they can't prove, and that is about it.


 

How many people purchased Nasdijj/Timothy Barrus' novels, because they thought he was Navajo

How many people drink and drive, or break the thousands upon thousands of laws we have on the law books? Should people with legitimate claims and experiences in regards to themselves and their families be barred from writing in such a way that makes them legally deny being NDN because of men such as Barrus.

 Men like him should be hunted down, exposed and even prosecuted if possible, however it does not mean that people's freedom of speech and other things should be taken away because of him.

  In all due honesty they could say they are not NDN because they are not enrolled, and most likely in both the libraries and books stores, their books will be found in the Native American section.

 I guess in that regards, we would have to start giving book stores and public libraries fines for putting books in the wrong section huh?

[Moma_porcupine]

Rattlebone

Well my friend let me make something very clear to you hear, and hopefully you will remember it and it was cause a lot less friction between us.

Oh for Petes sakes Rattlebone...

I understand that you may not have felt bls926's comment about you was fair, but you didn't need to get all insulted and respond with an off topic personal attack...How I see it is just that bls926 puts a strong value on honesty. The accusation she puts people in boxes, and is high and mighty about it is just your own interprtation...

You do stand up for PODIAs....

And yes your own definition of who is NDN, and who isn't is complicated...which is Ok because in my opinion,  so is the truth. I think we all recognize that.  But if we all see this a bit differently, no one needs to try and discredit the other person with the " I'm more NDN than you" arguement.

As for the topic of this thread, which is how authors and musicians identify themselves...I think everybody who is commenting here is right - in some circumstances.

If someone presents themself as Lakota, but what they actually mean is that they have a greatgrandparent who was Lakota, but the family assimilated after that, it would be more accurate to say that they are a descendent - and if they are mentioning their Lakota heritage in an interview, they should be clear their work is inspired by their experience as a descendent. 


One example which comes to mind is the author of the book Half Breed, Maria Campbell. At the time this book was written , the Metis had no recognition as Aboriginal people, and in the book they are usually reffered to simply as as 1/2 breeds, or the "road allowance people". Maria campbell has, what she reffers to as several 1/2 breed or Cree great grandparents, but nowhere does she try and pass herself off as being a Cree author. She wrote honestly and provocatively , as a person of mixed blood. If she had tried to pass herself off as Cree, it would have take away from her true identity, and the honest perspective of her story, which was about the reality of being a person of mixed blood.

  http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/campbell-maria


I think the problem is, when people misrepresent themselves or try to deny parts of who they are, in order to only put emphasize another part.

I think the important thing is that any information a author or composer provides about themselves, ( especially if they are using this to market something ) is in fact accurate. And if a persons indigenous identity is a central plank in gaining public attention , just what this indigenous identity is,  needs to be accurately explained. I also think people using an indigenous identity to gain public credibility should have a responsibility to provide enough information to the public, so the public can verify their claims .

Sometimes, like for some of the people who post here, it may be too complicated or personal to explain all the things that have contributed to make a person who they are, and when someone says they are Cherokee or Lakota or whatever, in their minds, it's just a short way of saying they believe they have some descent and that they feel this is an important part of their identity. Even when people make these claims as casual parts of on line conversations, I wish they would be more clear about what they are saying, but some instances of this are more exploitive and dishonest than others.

It might take some thought as to how to word the arts and craft law, so it penalize authors and composers who misrepresen themselves, but would still allow honest expression to people of some Native descent. But I think it could be done, and would help discourage a lot of exploitive frauds who spread misinformation.

In refference to John Two Hawks claiming to be a Lakota musician, maybe someone could email him and ask him who exactly his Lakota ancestors are.

The way this guy is using references to Lakota spirituality to attract people to his workshops or sell books, seems wrong to me no matter what his personal heritage is......But putting my own opinion on that aside...

He is clearly using the claim to Lakota heritage to market his products, and I think he has a responsibility to provide a way for the public to verify this.

[critter - a white non-ndn person]

I think the important thing is that any information a author or composer provides about themselves, ( especially if they are using this to market something ) is in fact accurate. And if a persons indigenous identity is a central plank in gaining public attention , just what this indigenous identity is,  needs to be accurately explained. I also think people using an indigenous identity to gain public credibility should have a responsibility to provide enough information to the public, so the public can verify their claims .

It might take some thought as to how to word the arts and craft law, so it penalize authors and composers who misrepresen themselves, but would still allow honest expression to people of some Native descent. But I think it could be done, and would help discourage a lot of exploitive frauds who spread misinformation.

Yes, for whatever it's worth, I agree with this completely.  Well said.

And I do want to say that when I read Bls state: 

"One more time . . . and I swear this is the last time I'm going to try to make y'all understand"

I was insulted and found it condescending, but I chose to ignore it and not reply with what first came to mind as I didn't want to engage in this.  But I am speaking of it now because I don't think it's wrong for Rattle to have spoken up.. and for what he had to say of it, and, I might add, he did so in a nice way.

I'm speaking of it because we are all people here, and it isn't nice to read something that insinuates because I am perceiving something from a different point, that I'm somehow too stupid to understand or have not or cannot. I didn't like being talked to in that way.  It was condescending to me.  And if I had had a nice way to have spoke of it before I would have, but I didn't, so I said nothing of it.

[Moma_porcupine]

Critter

It was condescending to me.

Or maybe it was just her feeling frustrated because what she was trying to say seemed obvious to her...

Critter you have only participated here for a short time. What you may not realize or understand, is that besides the time and effort some people have put into responding to these issues on this message board, many of these conversation we have here , are conversations people have had to have with people in their real lives for decades... And when it is PODIAs telling other PODIAs that they are being dishonest or exploitive, the people who are saying this also tend to be affected by their relatives bad behavior. After several years, and many conversations along the same lines, it can get frustrating. People can loose their mental bounce so to speak, and can just start feeling a bit exasperated.

Rattlebone does make a habit of very persitently sticking up for people of distant ancestry who want to identify as NDN. While I admire his dedication to what he sees as fairness, and I do think he is seriously considering this ,and evolving his own position, I have often felt frustrated with him because he has yet to clearly define just who and what types of behavior he is so persistently sticking up for.

I think the comment that he doesn't agree that someoneis NDN if the person has a story their ggggggrandma was NDN but they can't prove it, is about as close as he has got to narrowing this down.

Every time I read this, I think ...OK ..what about someone who CAN prove their gggggrandma was NDN...

For that matter what about someone who can prove their gr grandma was NDN?

Are we talking about these people having a right to be members of a social community which is mainly Native and mixed blood? If a person has a right to a social identity as a member of some sort of Native community ,does this automatically entitle these same people to a right to a political identity as indigenous people , independant of memebrship in a indigenous Nation ? Does a person with a social identity as an NDN also automatically have a right to benifit from whatever finacial opprotunities may be gained by identifying as a Native person?

These are important questions, and although Rattlebone has had a lot to say in every discussion that comes up that touches on this, i have never seen them actually clarify how they see this...

This particular thread is about people marketing their music or their writting as indigenous authors.

So is Rattlebone saying he thinks someone who has a gggggrandmother who was Lakota, has the right to market their music as the creations of a Lakota NDN?

Although Rattlebone has a lot to say about the rights of PODIAs , I have yet to see where they have explained what the limits to these rights might be.

And yes constantly responding to people defending the rights of PODIAs , and not being able to get a clear answer, about where these same people who defend the rights of PODIAs would put some limits on what these people are entitled to - and not entitled to - can be both exahsting and frustrating.

And sometimes that might come through in the tone of some peoples posts.

Critter...if you haven't had much first hand expereince trying to get this clarified, peoples frustration - combined with your own lack of expereince,- may come across as condescending.

I think we all need to cut each other some slack, especially when what we are responding to , is how we percieved something that was said, or what we think may have been the motive behind it, and not what was actually said.

[Rattlebone]

 Actually Momma Porcupine, I have explained in great detail my thoughts on the topic you have just broke down to Critter.

 Even when we were all arguing with Paul and others I have broke this down. So I do not see how you can say how I have never given an explanation about it.

 In your initial post to me in this thread you stated "And yes your own definition of who is NDN, and who isn't is complicated," which is false because in actuality it is,and has always been complicated. When dealing with people on sensitive matters things should not be so simple as to put them in little boxes.

 Thing is, I do not think I should address your statements in this thread because that would derail it. I was sticking to the topic and being very civil with everyone on this matter until BLS926 made her off remark about me.

I do not believe and have never once said that anyone with any Indian blood is an NDN regardless if I am more accepting of people then others.

 Nor do I feel that saying " I defend PODIA's" is an accurate statement because it would mean that I would actually think anyone with any NDN blood is an NDN. I do not feel that way and never have.

 Anyhow I am not going to say anymore on that in this thread because I do not believe it is fair to everyone else here, anymore then some of the statements made about me in this thread. That way the topic stays on topic.

 

[BlackWolf]

I think the Indian Arts and Crafts Act even in its current form should be looked at.  Currently it lets members of any State Recognized Cherokee Tribe to market their Art as "Cherokee" or “Cherokee Made”.  In some other threads I went over why most of these people's claims are bogus and that was corroborated my Moma_porcupine’s thread on genealogy.  So under the current law, you have people of fabricated ancestry passing off their artwork as Cherokee.  I know you can't classify all State Recognized Tribes in the same category, as some of them really are Historic Tribes, nor classify all unenrolled people, but in the cases of some of these bogus groups, it only takes the signature of a governor for their members to gain status as “Authentic American Indian Artisans”.  Considering the hordes of bogus State Recognized Cherokee Tribes out there.  (I think there are 4 just in Alabama alone), we can see where the problem lies. 

I’ve posted an Act passed by the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council in 2008.  Section 4 addresses the types of Art covered.

http://tribalrecognition.cherokee.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=D0d0B7bVETA%3D&tabid=106&mid=2118

It ties into some of the post above that talk about things such as storytelling and oral histories.  It also goes beyond the “Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990”, in that it only recognizes citizens of Federally Recognized Tribes.  While I do agree that there may be some legitimate people who are unfairly left out, the line has to be drawn somewhere.  The law is meant to counter all the Fakes and Frauds that misrepresent our Tribe, not to leave out people who may have legitimate claims.  I just don't know how that can be done so easily.

[critter - a white non-ndn person]

Critter

It was condescending to me.

Critter...if you haven't had much first hand expereince trying to get this clarified, peoples frustration - combined with your own lack of expereince,- may come across as condescending.

I think we all need to cut each other some slack, especially when what we are responding to , is how we percieved something that was said, or what we think may have been the motive behind it, and not what was actually said.

Ah, well, my comment wasn't in regards to Rattle's view on who is ndn.  I was speaking solely on the comment made that I qouted/re-posted in my previous reply. 

Well, I understand, and have understood for quite some time.  And I believe I was being quite clear in that anyone using their nationality as a marketing tool is exploiting people, and in some cases are clear frauds if they cannot produce anything to back up their claims.  I do not support people stealing and selling that which is not theirs. And I do not support people selling something that is clearly against the rights and voices of their own people.  I also do not believe that anyone with ndn ancestry is automatically an ndn in the eye of the law, or tribes.  That determination, I believe, should remain to the tribe to determine who is and who isn't. 

I also understand how overwhelmed this world is with the exploitation of Native peoples. It is a constant every day fight and people either just don't care, or they truly don't understand, or they understand but justify it in some way to make it OK.. when it is not.  I perceive it's a constant insult to Natives everywhere who have to deal with flakes and wannabes, frauds and fakes.  And I also perceive it to be um..  specific to indigenous peoples.  No one is flaunting that their Greek and writing books using their Greek nationality as a selling and marketing ploy.  However, I do not see where if someone believes they are Native, and writes some novel and mentions in their bio bit that they are Native, that that is anything really more or less than if someone made comment they were Greek.  There is a difference between exploiting and personally misrepresenting, and simply being misinformed or perhaps even not recognized.

Now, if there was no exploitation going on, no frauds, none of this New Age gimmickery and whatnot, if all was well and good.. and someone wrote a novel about totally unrelated topic.. and off hand mentioned in their bio bit that they were NA, I doubt anyone would even notice it as being anything worth questioning..  just as no one would notice it being anything worth questioning if someone mentioned they were Greek in their bio bit on a book that is just a novel with nothing to do about anything indigenous.

I'm sorry if when I read those words, I read them exactly as written, and felt condescended to.  I am human and get frustrated as well, for things I face all the time in my life that I can never speak of.  Oh well.  I'm tired, spiritually and otherwise, just plain "tired".   And I don't feel like being told I'm too dense to 'get it', then being told I shouldn't feel how I felt because of the frustrations of another.  People are people, maybe she was having as bad a day as I was..   maybe she didn't mean it in that way, but it is how I felt, and for whoever or wherever or whatever it matters to anyone, ... or not..  I am a valid being and it was not called for to be spoken to like that.  But whatever, people are people.  People either take the time to think of how their words will affect another or they don't..  who cares anymore.. it's over.

Done now.   I extend apologies if anyone feels the need for, as I am not perfect and although I have no intentions of hurting anyone through word or expression, it's often possible that that happens.  So I extend apologies. 

Peace. Be well. Sincerely.

[bls926]

Guess I should reply to these posts, even though I was tempted to ignore them. First, I was not being condescending, was not trying to "talk down" to anyone. Frustrated? Hell yes! Tired of trying to explain what I meant? Absolutely! Y'all kept saying people shouldn't be censored; people should be allowed to write their life-stories. I never said people couldn't write whatever they wanted to. I don't advocate censorship; never have and never will. What I do believe is that if someone is not connected to their Nation, they should not call themself a Native American author.

Critter, I apologize if you misconstrued my intentions. I'm not an authority on anything and have never tried to give that impression. I am passionate about my beliefs. You're new here and may not realize all the dynamics at play. Rattle was not being polite to me, far from it. There are underlying currents. Most times they stay right below the surface; other times, like in this thread, they spike.

Rattle, that was quite a dissertation. You feel better now? We got off to a bad start because of the Ben Carnes thread; you've been critical of me ever since. You have a problem with me, not because of anything I say or do, but because of who my friends are. You've even gone so far as to do research into my background. Enough. No more. As for your feelings about who is and isn't Indian . . . You've been ambiguous. You accept one person who can't prove his blood, while attacking others. It's obvious to those of us who know you, who you're talking about when you say ggggggrandmother. Why do you accept one person with no documentation, while dismissing another as a wannabee? BQ isn't important to you; however I've seen you dis someone who looked like they were only "1/4 BQ at most". You've defended the rights of PODIA's to claim Indian status, but are very critical of State recognized tribes. It's a little hard to figure out where you stand on this issue. Maybe it just depends on who you're talking to or about.  

I don't want to continue this conversation. Y'all have had your say and now I've had mine. The thread has been derailed enough.

[Moma_porcupine]

Rattlebone

You do have a good point about it not being fair to bring up my impression of what you have said in other threads , and as you have posted in this one a number of times, I should be asking you to clarify what you have said here , just on this topic.  

What was being discussed was people who compose or perform music, and market themselves and there product as created by an American Indian.

You expanded this to include books.

And then you said...

Rattlebone to bls926 in this thread on this subject

Reply #29

Though you might call yourself a descendant, the bottom line is you are Cherokee because you are Cherokee by blood

This is the type of comment you make where you seem to be saying anyone with a drop of blood is Indian if they want to be . Which was replied to after you said it....

Reply #38
bls926

Y'all are missing the point. Rattle, because he thinks one drop of Indian blood makes you Indian.

Rattlebone you said this, in this thread , in relation to what is being discussed here , and you said , in your opinion, this is the bottom line...

This is an example of why I am saying your personal way of defining who is an NDN and who is entitled to use an NDN identity for personal gain is confusing...

So, considering that creating culturally inspired art, music, books ect is one of the few ways indigenous people have to make a living, which may also allow them to retain many of their traditional values and culture, and considering that there is a limited market for products marketed as made by American Indians, how exactly does your comment above, define who you consider as having the right to call themselves an American Indian producer, and who exactly do you think has a right to benifit from this identity?

Rattlebone, I am trying to nail down your opinion on this. Could you please pick the  definitions which would most reflects your own views..

1. A creative work can rightly be said to be produced by an American Indian if the producer is enrolled in a federally recognized tribe, or who has the official permission of the leaders of a federally recognized tribe, to market their product as American Indian made.


2. A creative work can rightly be said to be produced by an American Indian if the producer has more than 1/8 BQ or they can prove a direct ancestor within the last 2 generations who was a member of a federally recognized tribe.


3. A creative work can rightly be said to be produced by an American Indian if the producer has more that 1/32 BQ or they can prove they had a direct ancestor within the last 4 generations who was a member of a federally recognized tribe

4. A creative work can rightly be said to be produced by an American Indian if the producer has more that 1/32 BQ or the producer can prove they had a direct ancestor within the last 4 generations who was a member of a federally recognized tribe, but only if they have some friends who are NDN, who see them as NDN and they have participated in some form of American Indian culture.


5. A creative work can rightly be said to be produced by an American Indian if the producer has more that 1/1024 BQ or if the producer can prove they had a direct ancestor within the last 8 generations who was a member of a federally recognized tribe, but only if this person has some friends who are NDN, and only if this person has particpated in some events which involve some form of American Indian culture.

6. A creative work can rightly be said to be produced by an American Indian if the producer has any amount of NDN descent , as long as they can prove it but only if this person has some friends who are NDN, and only if this person has particpated in some events which involve some form of American Indian culture.

7. A creative work can rightly be said to be produced by an American Indian if the producer has been influenced by some aspect of Native culture and wishes to identify themself as NDN.

8.As long as it is respectful of cultural boundaries, and indigenous property rights, a creative work can rightly be said to have been influenced by some aspect of a persons own indigenous heritage or expereince , or by some aspect of Native culture, and anyone who wants to is free to acknowledge this influence , but not to market their work as created by an American Indian.

Personally I would choose number 1 and number 8.

Ward Churchill could have written everything he wrote, and it would have been a lot more powerful , if he had done this simply as a person who was influenced by indigenous cultures, who believed he may have had some Native descent .

Rattlebone

though much much fewer then those who claim to be NDN without proof; there are indeed NDN people whom have fell through the cracks of the enrollment process.

Yes this is very true , which is why it can be frustrating when someone says that for them bottom line is anyone with Cherokee blood is Cherokee, and then  get upset and deny saying this... along with the very real problems this lack of clear definitions creates....

[Unegv Waya]

FWIW, I agree, Momma Porcupine, that numbers one and eight fit what I have always accepted the IACA to be about.  Those two seem to describe the true spirit of the law's intention.

[LittleOldMan]

I thought that you all might find this site interesting as it speaks to the topic of the NA flute  http://www.native-languages.org/flutes.htm   "LittleOldMan"

[Moma_porcupine]

Ive been continueing to think about this, and i feel a bit bad as i generally appreciate a lot of what Rattlebone has had to say, and I think his motives are generally honorable, even if I don't always agree with him ...

He has often expressed concern for the people who are nearly full blood but who for one reason or another can't enroll, and I think this is valid.

Maybe that concern could be addressed without leaving a huge loophole for non natives misappropriating Native identity, by adding to option #1, a way people who aren't enrolled but can prove they are at least 1/2 of Native descent , could apply for an extemption which would allow them to advertise themselves as unenrolled American Indian producers. (?) Would that solve that concern?

Rattlebone, i still hope you will explain which of the possible options I suggested , you think would best address this problem.... 

It seems there is a very direct connection between people identifying themselves as NDN > and then going on to assume they are entitled to access , control and benifit from the resources which belong to Native people.

And it seems to me that even if people don't mean it this way, encouraging people who are descendents to identify themselves as NDN >, is in fact encouraging people who are mainly non native to feel they are entitled to access , control and benifit from resources which belong to NDN people and communities.

Because this is a serious problem, I don't see how protecting the rights of a few individuals who may fall through the cracks, is worth not protecting the rights of the many indigenous artists who are hurt by having to compete with non native people wanting to take over their identity. 

I'm sorry if I seem overly nit picky, but I think clear definitions about who owns what are really important, especially when it comes to clear definitions that protect indigenous peoples right to benifit from their own resources and culture.
 

[bls926]

. . . He has often expressed concern for the people who are nearly full blood but who for one reason or another can't enroll, and I think this is valid.

Maybe that concern could be addressed without leaving a huge loophole for non natives misappropriating Native identity, by adding to option #1, a way people who aren't enrolled but can prove they are at least 1/2 of Native descent , could apply for an extemption which would allow them to advertise themselves as unenrolled American Indian producers. (?) Would that solve that concern? . . .

Wouldn't #1 take care of that? Anyone with a real connection to their people would be able to receive the blessing and permission of their Nation to market their art as American Indian, whether they were enrolled or not.

1. A creative work can rightly be said to be produced by an American Indian if the producer is enrolled in a federally recognized tribe, or who has the official permission of the leaders of a federally recognized tribe, to market their product as American Indian made.

[critter - a white non-ndn person]

Perhaps a clause of some sort, that states the intention of the producer of the creative work in regards to those who 'fall between the cracks'.  If it is merely for self expression and not for benefiting (from) or exploiting the Native Identity on a whole.

As far as on the product itself, wording is a good option but as some have pointed out, many people don't really 'read' the wording and 'Native style' doesn't ring bells with them as not being 'Native made'.  

Perhaps one thing that could be done is create a recognizable seal that is stamped on any true Native works, so any book or cd in any retail setting can easily be recognized as 'authentic'.  People are generally able to much easier see a stamp/pictorial of authenticity than to read words and comprehend as to what it is they are buying.