Questions on Indigenous Identity

The single greatest cause for confusion among Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike is identity. How do you define it? What is an Indigenous person? And if 100% of the population does not agree on a single definition, which one is the "true" definition?

Do we define Indigenous identity in the negative? That is to say, I am not white, therefore I am Indigenous. Or, I am not Canadian, therefore, Indigenous.

When we opt for a specific definition, do we need to be an exclusive group? That is to say, reject participation with the world or with anyone outside our own little cliques?

Can an Indigenous root for a sporting team that is not racially their own, yet refer to the team as "their" team? Does this mean they are not Indigenous or that they are not a credible voice for Indigenous issues?

Suppose the Olympic team try outs for Canada declared that no Indigenous person may be on the team... Would we not angrily cry out "Racism!"? When Waneek Horn Miller, prominent Mohawk voice, made the Canadian Olympic team for water polo... Did she refuse to call it her team? No! She referred to the team as her team. Would she have wanted Indigenous people to reject supporting the team? No! Did this make her "colonial," "collaborationalist," "uncredible as an Indigenous voice," "un-Indigenous"?!?

So what is an Indigenous person? Is it by blood? Then there are no Indigenous nations, only ethnicity.
Is it by geography? Then what of those living off reserve or who were born off reserve or never lived on reserve or were taken from birth mothers and adopted out to white families?

Is it by recognized special "status"? Then our identity is entirely dictated by the Federal government.
What about identity by following a spiritual path? Then we have no nations, only a religion and anyone, even a person of Asian, African, or European descent can be Indigenous simply by making a 'religious' choice.

What about citizenship? I have yet to see this implemented, but would this not make more sense. Then we would need our own citizenship codes and immigration laws.

Now, whatever becomes the defacto standard definition - if ever one can be possible even - is part of that identity dependent on how much hate and rejection of non-Indigenous people we demonstrate? Must we always refer to non-Indigenous people as "the enemy" and "them"?

In all honesty, I don't think we can form a single identity for "Indigenous" people. In fact, as I pose these questions and ponderings, I think "Indigenous" is just as bad a term as the Canadian use of "Aboriginal." In fact, a Haida or a Cree or a Mohawk has no right to accuse an Ojibway or Blackfoot or Assiniboine of not being "Indigenous."

In fact, I believe so called "Indigenous" people who do this are practicing assimilation (perhaps without realizing it), but rather than forcing people to be Canadian or British, they force them to be whatever group they themselves are from (I.e. Mohawk, Anishinaabe, Innu, etc.).

If you are reading this, maybe someone once called you Apple, or Trading Post Indian, or Indian Agent, or colonial, or some other crude derogatory term. Take heart, for those are assimilationist terms and you are who you are despite what others may say. Nobody can control your identity. If you wish to seek your own identity - go back to your own Elders, for only your own people can determine if you are "Indigenous" or not.

I am Anishinaabe. No Blackfoot, Cree, Mohawk, Innu, Dakota, Dene, Maliseet, etc can tell me I am not Anishinaabe. And not a single one of them can tell me I lack credibility to speak for my own people.

Likewise I cannot tell them the same, nor can any of us give "approval" for it either. Only Anishinaabe can respond to Anishinaabe on identity.

What does this mean going forward? I'm not fully sure. I just know I am not sure umbrella terms are doing any of us any favours.

Indigenous People and the Betty Crocker Axe at Our Necks

I recently came across a call for papers from Indigenous Policy Journal for their “Special Issue of Indigenous Policy, Spring 2012.”

This was of great interest to me because it treats the subject of a current court case in Alaska where Indigenous people there are literally fighting in the courtrooms for the recognition of their existence.

The story starts back in 1989. Exxon Valdez, an oil company had been responsible for a serious oil spill in Alaska on March 24, 1989. Between 260,000 and 750,000 barrels of crude oil had been spilled. According to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (www.evostc.state.ak.us/History/FAQ.cfm). The immediate effects were wildlife deaths in the hundreds of thousands and the complete destruction, permanently, of the fisheries in the region.

The local economy, environment and entire way of life had been completely and utterly destroyed in a single devastating event. Many people, including the mayor of one town in the region, committed suicide after the spill. Even now, 22 years later, the toxins have not been removed and the environment has not been restored. The economy still remains in ruin. Because the Indigenous communities there are remote, fishery and wildlife was the cornerstone of the local economy. Now, there are limited economic options or hopes.

Exxon should have fairly compensated the local people for the destruction they caused, right? Apparently, many others thought so too. They took it to court. Exxon ultimately won by “proving” that the Indigenous people there (the Alutiiq people) were no longer Indigenous people by the time of the spill and, therefore, their culture could not have been damaged. So, no compensation required.

How did they prove this? They argued that the Alutiiq people were no different than average middle class Americans because they had been observed using Betty Crocker cake mix.

In a second trial regarding hunting and fishing rights in 2008, the US government denied the Alutiiq people their rights, arguing that they did not exist as a pan-Alutiiq people prior to contact (they were several groups who amalgamated in identification) and so they could not possibly have Alutiiq rights.

Although these are American court systems and laws, the approach of trying to deny Indigenous people their rights on the basis of “modern” practices is well used by colonial governments all over the world.

Pamela Palmater, in her blog, summarized many of the key points to this backward way of thinking. The main point that applies here is that the rights of Indigenous peoples can NOT be “frozen” to pre-contact times, as repeatedly clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada

Consider the ramifications of the Exxon and the US government’s flawed logic. If what they say were to be relevant, then USA and Canada have no rights selling computers, electronics, automobiles, modern housing (with drywall and vinyl and the many modern materials) because all of these items were no traditionally traded by these colonial governments pre-contact. Skyscrapers, subways, and all the modern conveniences would all need to be torn down and done away with as they are irrelevant to traditional Americans and Canadians. Obviously, this is ridiculous.

The problem comes from a flawed understanding of what trade and economics truly mean. Usually it is Wall Street thinkers that struggle to wrap their heads around the broader, more accurate understandings of trade and economics. Allow me to illuminate so that we are all on the same page.

Wall Street thinking of “trade”: financial transactions

True understanding of trade: any exchange of goods or services whether or NOT they make use of a common trade medium such as currency. If I catch a fish and trade it with my uncle for his solar-powered calculator, this is trade. It is a transaction. No money was employed, but it is an economic activity and it is a commercial activity regardless of whether the two parties or related or not.

Wall Street thinking of “economics”: currency, GDP, financial profit

True understanding of economics: the process by which people obtain what they need or want. This is often done through the science of incentives (I want something, an incentive, so I need to negotiate how I will obtain it). An economy can exist and be thriving and successful and never ever involve money. In fact, currency (money) is an imaginary system created to simply facilitate easier trade (See my earlier post on barter systems and discussions on the meaning of economy here, and here).

So a community that had fished for consumption in the past did in fact, have an economy. Fishing for consumption is an economic activity and just because it did not involve the exchange of money or a direct trade between two people, it did involve a trade of time and skill for an economic reward (fish). In this way, this economic activity was also a commercial activity.

Furthermore, just because a people did not engage in one specific form of economic activity in the past, does not mean that they have no right to do so in the future. To deny them that right means that every nation on this planet must be denied their right to produce and trade every modern product.

What about the question of culture?

Are our rights, our ways of life and our very culture itself restricted to historical stereotypes and caricatures? If I am not living in a teepee year round and wearing buckskin clothing, do I cease to be Ojibwe? Do my rights cease?

Naturally, the answers are a resounding NO. For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that this is the case universally. I will liberally borrow an idea from one of Dr. Pamela Palmater’s presentation of the “traditional” Canadian.

The traditional Canadian historically wore black robes, sported long locks of white or grey hair and was white. Their traditional way of life included squatting, consuming massive amounts of alcohol (Sir John A McDonald was a well documented drunk), arguing over legal terminology, and judging other people. In their traditional culture, homosexuality was criminalized and punished, people suspected of witchcraft could be burned at the stake. Now, if Canadians cease to practice these traditional ways and dressing, their rights are null and void. They are no longer Canadian citizens.

Since Canadians no longer outlaw homosexuality or burn people at the stake their Canadian culture is dead and no longer exists. Therefore they have no rights any longer and America may take the land, for example.

Ridiculous, no? Yet this is exactly what the white colonial governments attempt to do to Indigenous people in order to justify their continued expropriation of land and resources. Just as Canadians have been allowed to evolve as a culture and change over time, so must we be allowed.

The fundamental problem is when the colonials attempt to treat our nations as a culture or a race. We are neither; we are nations. Our nations do have a specific culture and majority of our citizens are of a specific ethnicity, but that does not deny the fact that our nations were historically and are now still nations.

So, let’s have a Betty Crocker revolution! Let us hold a box of Betty Crocker cake mix in the air and proudly proclaim that we still retain our cultures and our inherent rights as Indigenous peoples!