Passing as Native Musicians

[critter - a white non-ndn person]

Wanted to add that basic psychology of people tells me that the normal seeker person looking for a book, would be more apt to buy something stamped as 'authentic' than not. Standing in a book store, looking at all the books on Native Americans, they choose by what sounds to give the best information.  Why choose this book, when the one next to it has a stamp of authenticity on it.  The stamp needs to be on the spine and front/back covers and stand out. 

It is unfortunate so many people get sucked into the new age vacuum, simply because they don't know what they are reading is false. By the time they're entrenched, it's harder to get them to see beyond it.

[BlackWolf]

 While I do agree that there should be clear boundaries between enrolled citizens of Federally Recognized Tribes in regards to resources and the marketing of Art, I also believe that people who have a certain heritage whether that be Cherokee, Swedish or Chinese, do have the right to practice that heritage and be proud of it.  I speak out a lot against fakes on these boards.  And it’s not meant to be directed at unenrolled people who for whatever reason aren't enrolled, it's more geared towards people with fabricated heritage and history who have stereotypical and sometimes racist views of what being Indian means to them. If people want to claim and be proud of their Cherokee heritage, then they would have the right to do that.  However, one should also keep in mind that there's no such thing as a generic American Indian culture.  If being Cherokee is important to someone, then what I would recommend to them is to make contact with actual Cherokees.  For the most part they are located in Oklahoma and North Carolina.  Sure American Indians have some common and shared elements of culture in the same way that French, British, and Greeks do.  But if someone wants to claim and be proud of their Cherokee heritage, then they should seek out Cherokees and Cherokee culture and heritage, not some Pan Indian Identity.  The most important thing is for your own people to recognize you, and whether or not Indians from other tribes recognize you as Indian is really of secondary importance.  It would be like if I was of Greek ancestry through a grandparent, and I was trying to be accepted by French and Germans by claiming a European identity.  I'm not saying I wouldn't support certain European causes, just that I should concentrate on the heritage that I am claiming to practice and be proud of.



I took this from the CN website in regards to the citizenship issuse.  

Heritage is different from citizenship. Many people with genuine Indian heritage will never meet the qualifications to become citizens in a federally recognized tribe.  The Cherokee Nation does not question anyone’s claims of heritage or ancestry, but merely points out the significant difference between claiming heritage and having citizenship in a federally recognized Indian tribe. We encourage people of Cherokee heritage to take pride in and become active in heritage and cultural organizations even if they are not eligible for citizenship.

[bls926]

Good post, BlackWolf! I especially liked what you said about being recognized by your own people. There's no such thing as legitimate Pan-Indian culture. Thank you.

But if someone wants to claim and be proud of their Cherokee heritage, then they should seek out Cherokees and Cherokee culture and heritage, not some Pan Indian Identity.  The most important thing is for your own people to recognize you, and whether or not Indians from other tribes recognize you as Indian is really of secondary importance.

[Moma_porcupine]

Wouldn't #1 take care of that?

In most cases I would think that would be all that would be needed, but having a clause that would protect people who are Native , if someone in a tribal government had some sort of personal agenda, which unfairly excluded some people , this might help protect a few more people who deserve protection. Rattlebone sounds like he has seen some situations like this in California.

Perhaps a clause of some sort, that states the intention of the producer

I think proving someones intentions is next to impossible and would just lead to endless disputes. Enrollment or official OK from a tribe is the most objective criteria, and would protect the most people, who rightly deserve protection. 

It's hard to understand how people can say an image they captured with a camera , when the person niether made the object photographed or the camera , is their intellectual property, and a author of a musical composition that is too closely copied by another composer has legal protection, but when non natives do obvious copies of traditional designs or melodies , there doesn't seem to be the same legal consequences.

Perhaps one thing that could be done is create a recognizable seal that is stamped on any true Native works

That would help, but first you would have to define who was eligible to use this seal.

I also believe that people who have a certain heritage whether that be Cherokee, Swedish or Chinese, do have the right to practice that heritage and be proud of it

I don't know Blackwolf... if someone has a Swedish gr grandma, and their family has lived in the US for the past 3 generations, even if they have visited Sweden and feel a deep connection with that part of their heritage, unless they were going to become a formal citizen of the country of Sweden , it would still seem strange if such a person who had 7 gr granparents who were Irish began insisting they were Swedish and nothing else. 

it would make me wonder why they were so concerned to deny that other 7/8 of their family background...

And even if such a person did become a citizen of Sweden, and in becoming a citizen of Sweden they renounced all other political identities, they would still have a lot of non Swedish heritage.

That is where people of distant ancestry who claim an NDN identity begin feeling unreal and even exploitive to me.  Unless they had some kind of discomfort with the other parts of their heritage, it seems a person can be proud of their small amount of Swedish / Cherokee or Chinese heritage, and can even feel most strongly about the influence this has on them, without needing to deny everything else.

I know lots of PODIAs who are proud of their Native heritage, and acknowledge it's influence,  but who would never claim to be NDN, and as far as i have seen , those who do are usually exploiters.

Thats why I believe that most these unenrolled PODIAs who say they are Cherokee (or other tribal identity) are not being honest, even if they do have some Native blood, and it would be more correct to say they had some influence from their Cherokee ( or whatever it is ) heritage.

I also think the world view /influence of indigenous people has generally rubbed off on a lot of the other cultures they have lived beside, often in very benificial ways.

But people don't have to have Native blood to have been influenced by this, and people don't have to become NDN to incorporate some of the positive core values- (like it is no longer acceptable to beat children) - or musical influences - into their own ways.

My use of the term "American Indian produced" was just a short way of avoiding a long list of specific tribes.

(Edited to improve order of paragraphs)

[BlackWolf]

Isn't there a clause in the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 that gives non enrolled people who can prove descent from enrolled members the opprutunity to lable their Art as "Native American Made"?

Under the Act, an Indian is defined as a member of any federally or State recognized Indian Tribe, or an individual certified as an Indian artisan by an Indian Tribe.

http://www.doi.gov/iacb/act.html

I was just curious as  to how that works? ( To become certified? )) Lets say for example your mom is 1/4 Navajo and you can't enroll because of the minimum BQ set at a 1/4.  Your 1/8 by BQ.  I think these people can be certified, but I was wondering "how that works".  Is it automatic?, or do you have to go before the Tribal Council and petition?

The other thing I was wondering about is if you can prove you are descended from Cheorkee, or Mohawk rolls, etc but aren't enrolled nor have a parent enrolled.  Can they also be certified as Indian Artisans under the act?

[LittleOldMan]

BlackWolf:  My understanding is that the "Artisan" designation flows down from the Tribe rather than up from the "Artisan".  I have understood that it was a way for a Tribe to both honor and individual as well as enhance the cultural identity and or economic position of the Tribe without an adoption process.  Think no BQ here.  It is my understanding that there are very few of these people out there.  Since this is just my understanding I would be interesting in learning the true perspective from a Tribal representative.  Perhaps some one here may know.  "LittleOldMan"

[BlackWolf]

LittleOldMan said

BlackWolf:  My understanding is that the "Artisan" designation flows down from the Tribe rather than up from the "Artisan".  I have understood that it was a way for a Tribe to both honor and individual as well as enhance the cultural identity and or economic position of the Tribe without an adoption process.  Think no BQ here.

LOM, Are you sure about that? I found this here.  I know someone who has an enrolled parent, but they can't enroll because they fall below the minimum 1/4 BQ of their Tribe.  But they got certification as an Indian Artisan.  I thought this person only got this because he could prove lineal descent from an enrolled member.  As I have understood it, a Tribe cannot certify someone who is not of direct linal descent of an enrolled Tribal Member.  This is how I always understood it anyway.  Has anyone else heard anything different besides LOM? 


http://www.artnatam.com/law.html

The final regulations adopt most of these comments. As amended, section 309.4 clarifies that to be eligible for certification as an Indian artisan by a particular tribe, the individual must be of the Indian ancestry of that tribe. The final regulations clarify that the certification must be documented in writing by the governing body of an Indian tribe or by a certifying body delegated this function by the governing body of an Indian tribe. The certification to be provided by the Indian tribe is that the individual is a non-member Indian artisan of the tribe.

Sec. 309.4 How can an individual be certified as an Indian artisan?

In order for an individual to be certified by an Indian tribe as a non-member Indian artisan for purposes of this part--
The individual must be of Indian lineage of one or more members of such Indian tribe; and
The certification must be documented in writing by the governing body of an Indian tribe or by a certifying body delegated this function by the governing body of the Indian tribe.
As provided in section 107 of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, Public Law 101-644, a tribe may not impose a fee for certifying an Indian artisan.

[LittleOldMan]

Thanks BlackHawk Looks like that I am still confused I'll read through the provided link. I am not an advocate either way just attempting to understand the law as written and applied.  Be back after a while.  "LOM"

[LittleOldMan]

Wow! What a read.  Understand now.                                                      The final regulations adopt most of these comments. As amended, section 309.4 clarifies that to be eligible for certification as an Indian artisan by a particular tribe, the individual must be of the Indian ancestry of that tribe. The final regulations clarify that the certification must be documented in writing by the governing body of an Indian tribe or by a certifying body delegated this function by the governing body of an Indian tribe. The certification to be provided by the Indian tribe is that the individual is a non-member Indian artisan of the tribe.  It does leave truthful statements about the ancestry of the artist/craftsman alone.  So in this case if one calls themselves Lakota, Navajo, Cherokee, or Mohawk in the marketing of his work they D##n well be ready to prove it in the legal sense of the word if not certified by a Tribe.  As music, namely the Native American Music genre is not a protected class, then free speech rules.  Example any one is allowed to play and enjoy a Bach concerto not just those who are of like descent.  Anyone can record and sell a piece written be Johnny Cash as long as the proper royalties are paid.  Music is different from a beaded choker or a feathered dance stick and while we may not agree that it is not covered under the Arts and Crafts act it isn't.  The only weapons at hand then are information and shame.  "LittleOldMan"   

[BlackWolf]

Moma_Porcupine said

I don't know Blackwolf... if someone has a Swedish gr grandma, and their family has lived in the US for the past 3 generations, even if they have visited Sweden and feel a deep connection with that part of their heritage, unless they were going to become a formal citizen of the country of Sweden , it would still seem strange if such a person who had 7 gr granparents who were Irish began insisting they were Swedish and nothing else.  

I guess I can see your point to a certain extent Moma_Porcupine.  But what  you begin to realize when you start to meet enough of these “Claimants”, is that nothing is really going to change the fact that they are going to claim this alleged Cherokee/Lakota/ American Indian Identity no matter how much people denounce them whether it be online or in the real world.  
Read the post here by Tavareti

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2335.0

I guess the CN and EB are just doing Damage Control at this point in time.  The only thing you can really do is denounce the obvious frauds, and make sense of claims that may be legit.  I can see your point about why someone would only identify with one ancestor, which is especially strange when most of these people‘s claims aren’t based on any evidence.  I guess if someone really did have a legitimate claim then they would have the right to say that this is their heritage, but what this actually means to the individual is another story.  If it means saying they have Cherokee blood but that they weren’t influenced by this heritage and they just want to learn more about it then I don’t see a problem with that.  Now if they think they should get some special recognition and privilege based on this, then that would be different.  And I would say they don’t have the right to do this.

I guess I’m looking at this thing from a perspective of a Cherokee.  Being part Cherokee is not really part of Cherokee culture so I guess that’s why I have trouble sometimes understanding these claims myself.  In Oklahoma you have Full Blood Cherokees and Mixed Blood Cherokees.  No one is part Cherokee based on a great grandma.  They are either a Cherokee Citizen or UKB citizen and that’s it.  

[Moma_porcupine]

Blackwolf

I guess I’m looking at this thing from a perspective of a Cherokee.  Being part Cherokee is not really part of Cherokee culture so I guess that’s why I have trouble sometimes understanding these claims myself.  In Oklahoma you have Full Blood Cherokees and Mixed Blood Cherokees.  No one is part Cherokee based on a great grandma.  They are either a Cherokee Citizen or UKB citizen and that’s it.

I think it gets confusing because there is so many layers to our identities, and peoples personal identity is largely influenced by the community they live in. BQ generally says something about the culture that was carried by our parents, garandparents or greatgrandparents, but it doesn't show which community these people lived in or what culture their children were mainly exposed to. Which is why I try and talk about BQ along with how many generations it's been since someones family lived in a native community.

And peoples political identity can be diferent than their ethnic or cultural identity. A child born in the US to Japenese parents with American citizenship, who is raised in Japan , will still have American citizenship, and the rights and benifits associated with that.

The CNO seems to have a policy similar to the US when it comes to willingness to assimilate newcomers, though it does require Cherokee blood and membership in the community recorded on the dawes rolls. I guess this is what you mean when you say from your point of view a person can't be part Cherokee. Obviously when it comes to cultural heritage and blood a person can be part Cherokee, the same way a smoothy that is put through a blender can be part blueberry , part banana and part pineapple. It isn't correct to say any smoothy with any amount of blueberries is a blueberry smoothy. This just isn't true.

But from a political point of veiw, i can see saying someone is part cherokee would be similar to saying someone was part American. There is no such thing as part American . You either are or you are not.

And I am still not sure I am understanding the various reasons a person is seen as Cherokee or not, by people who are.......

A couple weeks ago I was thinking about starting a thread to discuss what a Native community is, as culture and acceptence by a Native community is often used to justify claiming an NDN identity , but just trying to get all the various aspects of this in some coherent order was exhasting... Someday , it would be an interesting dicussion.

But what  you begin to realize when you start to meet enough of these “Claimants”, is that nothing is really going to change the fact that they are going to claim this alleged Cherokee/Lakota/ American Indian Identity no matter how much people denounce them whether it be online or in the real world.

I like to hope clear communication helps...

[BlackWolf]

Moma_Porucpine said

And people’s political identity can be different than their ethnic or cultural identity.

That’s exactly it MP.  This is what so many people really just don't seem to get about the whole issue.  This is what we mean, when we talk about Cherokee identity. If someone has a 1/16 Cherokee BQ, no one is saying that they are racially Cherokee, just that they are politically Cherokee.  No of course, it is based on race in the sense of actually being Cherokee by blood, but not in the sense of being racially Cherokee.  I think a lot of people really don't understand that Indian Nations are actually sovereign Nations, not just a group of Indians.  I think this is where the confusion takes place and probably why somebody with an alleged gggg Cherokee grandma might feel left out.  But the Dawes Rolls were based on a residency requirement of citizens that lived in the Cherokee Nation at the time that was also based on blood and community.  Sure, you may have had a gggg Cherokee grandma, but they left the Nation.  Just like the people that left Ireland 200 years ago won't have descendents that can claim Irish citizenship.
So you have people who claim Cherokee heritage that really don’t understand the issues of political citizenship and how that really is the determining factor.  So when we say someone is racially Cherokee or Indian, for me it means someone with a BQ of at least half.  It would be ridiculous to say someone with a BQ of 1/16 is racially Indian.  But with that said, “Being by blood” is very very important in the sense of actually being descended from Cherokee families by blood.  This is the basis of Tribal Enrollment for the Cherokee Nation and other Tribes that use lineal descent. Our Tribal ID’s are really passports.  A lot of people are mad that they have to prove who they are.  Well, let’s see you cross the border from Mexico or Canada into the US without proving who you are.  You’ll be turned back at the border and no matter what the story you heard that your gggg grandma told you about being American, the Border Patrol isn’t going to let you pass the checkpoint.

Also, I think some of the confusion also comes in when you have “Claimants” of Cherokee Heritage claiming to be Indian.  They have to keep in mind that just because some tribes like the Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation, etc, etc is based on lineal descent, and for these tribes, the minimum BQ wasn’t really important historically, in other tribes out West that weren’t on the Eastern Seaboard in the Crosshairs of European colonization, this wasn’t the case so much.  For someone from a Tribe out West,. Being Indian might be more about being racially Indian and living in the community.  So their world view may be different than that of a Cherokee or Choctaw, or Creek.  It doesn’t mean that this tribe or that Tribe is wrong; it just means that they have different world views on who is accepted as citizens of their Nations.  So I think people from different Tribes should respect each other’s world views.  This may be were the confusion comes in for people whose American Indian heritage is based on minimal BQ’s and aren’t enrolled in the Nations that they claim.  Someone from a Tribe out west may wonder how someone can claim to be Indian that is not only racially white in appearance but at the same time isn’t even accepted by their own community where BQ isn’t an issue.  Just something to think about.

Also, thats a good idea MP about the thread on what a Native Community is.

[BlackWolf]

Moma_Porcupine

And I am still not sure I am understanding the various reasons a person is seen as Cherokee or not, by people who are.......

For me, its Political citizens that are Cherokee by blood of the Cherokee Nation, UKB, or Eastern Band.  But this definition even has its problems.  There are enrolled CN citizens who are Shawnee and Deleware by blood as opposed to cherokee by blood because of a Treaty.  And as far as I know, the Freedmen still have temporary citizenship in the CN.  I don't know how I would describe the Deleware and Shawnee "Cherokees".  Maybe just CN Citizens?   But as far as I'm concerned the hordes of fakes in the SE and elsewhere are just non Cherokees stealing a heritage that does not belong to them.  I think both you and I dealt with this in other threads.  Now the question that people ask is what about the people who can document their Cherokee ancestrsy without a doubt to other rolls. For me these are the only people that would possibly have the right to start a heritage group.  Just as you have the sons of Italy organizations in New York City and around the country.  They are not Italian, but they are of Italian heritage.  And they are Italian by blood.

I've seen varios opinoions on this.  "People of Cherokee heritage", people of Cherokee descent, and "Cherokee descendents".  The problem with saying someone is Cherokee that is not enrolled is obvious.  I guess if they are "Cherokee by blood" somewhere in their family tree then no one can really say they can't say that they are Cherokee by blood, as opposed to saying that they are "Cherokee".  Its kind of a murky issue that hasn't really been dealt with and I don't really know all the anwswers on how to best word things. .  I'm assuming other Tribes have this same controversy.  What is someone who is 1/16 documented Lakota?  A Lakota descendent, I'm assuming?


And you have a good point about the reasons as to why someone would or would not idenitify with this small part of their family tree.  No one could really deny someone to claim this heritage if they actually had it.  I also have a friend who is 1/8 Indian of a Tribe that has a 1/4 BQ requirement.  The parent that was enrolled from what he told me really didn't practrice the heritage much, but he does, or at least tries to learn.  I guess it comes down to wording.  Is this person "Indian" or of Indian heritage?

[Moma_porcupine]

Thanks Blackwolf

I appreciate your patience and all your explainations.

Myself, I think the wording can be important because there is stories that people build around the words, and actions that tend to follow.

I think there is a lot of room for people to realistically express and be grateful for a Native influence in their heritage, or the world they live in , without having to try and build a whole unreal and overblown identity around this. If people really do value this aspect of who they are, I would think they would want the people who were given the job of carrying the culture to be those who are most knowledgable , who have the best community support, and who have most deeply retained this culture. I would also think the people who treasure this part of their heritage, would want to make sure the communities that retained their identity and culture have the resources they need to keep the culture going, in the real way, for the next generations.  

Going back to a smoothy or fruit juice analogy... If it takes a huge commitment and investment to hang onto the blueberry farm , it would be wrong for someone with no real farm to maintain, to market more easily produced apple and pear juice as blueberry juice, just because a bit of blueberry juice is included.

Honesty in advertising would be that this is delicious pure sparkling apple and pear juice with a hint of blueberry.

There is more than one way to be good.

[Rattlebone]

Thanks Blackwolf

I appreciate your patience and all your explainations.

Myself, I think the wording can be important because there is stories that people build around the words, and actions that tend to follow.

I think there is a lot of room for people to realistically express and be grateful for a Native influence in their heritage, or the world they live in , without having to try and build a whole unreal and overblown identity around this. If people really do value this aspect of who they are, I would think they would want the people who were given the job of carrying the culture to be those who are most knowledgable , who have the best community support, and who have most deeply retained this culture. I would also think the people who treasure this part of their heritage, would want to make sure the communities that retained their identity and culture have the resources they need to keep the culture going, in the real way, for the next generations.  

Going back to a smoothy or fruit juice analogy... If it takes a huge commitment and investment to hang onto the blueberry farm , it would be wrong for someone with no real farm to maintain, to market more easily produced apple and pear juice as blueberry juice, just because a bit of blueberry juice is included.

Honesty in advertising would be that this is delicious pure sparkling apple and pear juice with a hint of blueberry.

There is more than one way to be good.

 You seem in this post and a few others, to be dictating that one's identity must revolve around their "racial make up."

 Perhaps you are not a mixed person, and so you would think this way, but that does not make it so.

 A mixed person should be realistic with themselves and the people around them and recognize that them being mixed being a reality is going to be visually recognized by those around them.

 However this does not mean their identities must be "mixed" as well. Historically there have been well known mixed people of low BQ who were very much Indians, and proud and well known members of their nations.

 This is especially true of what is what we all know as the "Five Civilized tribes," which are the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, Seminole, and Choctaw.

 Those above people gave the world men such as chief John Ross of the Cherokee, the McIntosh family/chiefs of the Creeks (whom my family actually in those days), William Grayson of the Creeks,and the list goes on and on.

 I think everyone of them probably did what I say NON NDN looking mixed bloods should do today, and that is use their being mixed for the benefit of NDN people. It is safe to say that men such as John Ross most likely did try this to the best of his abilities at the times he lived in.

 Chilly McIntosh whom was a highly mixed Creek Chief actually stated once that "he had no regards for white men." Now maybe we can say he could get away with saying that due to the times he lived in. However in the scheme of what we talk about on this site; it seems we wish to hold things as close to what they were pre Columbus,or NON NDN as possible. That in mind, then we should not be changing the rules in regards to people and how they should identify because this is 2010, and not Chilly's days of the late 1800's.

 When I was a younger person, my identity was probably "mixed," but as I have grown older and have really become who I am to be, that identity though is not of a mixed person even if in reality I must always be aware that I am. Most people who really know me are very much aware that I am NDN, and now days I have very few friends that are not NDN. I don't even date or get into relationships with people that are not either.

  My European ancestry is not something I have any connection with, and are some far away people on some land I have never been to. I don't feel I need to identify with them in any sort of way other then being realistic and acknowledge I have their blood in my veins as well.

  BQ is not a concept I believe in, and I never will. I am not against the concept of enrollment, and nor am I un-supportive of tribal governments. However living in an area where I see people who are darn near full blooded not having any recognition, or it being stripped away by tribal corruption; I do not view recognition as the definition of who is or is not NDN either.

 I personally view what the community has to say in regards to who is and who is not NDN above that of any government entity including tribal governments.

I too do not believe in the concept of "being part Indian." You either are Indian or you are not, and to me that is usually determined by the community around you.

 Part time Indians never are.