- This topic has 11 voices and 18 replies.
-
Posts
-
I applied to Eastern Michigan University a few months ago (I’m applying for their online dietician program). As with many forms these days, information supplying your race is optional. What shocked me is the definition for American Indian:
“American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment.”
This is also the definition on the census form, too.
Since when do people need to maintain a tribal affiliation or community attachment to be a racial group? :confused:
Does this mean that if you had an affiliation or community attachment and you loose/abandon it that you are no longer an American Indian or Alaska Native? How many people does that exclude (especially like many people on this board) because we may not meet those requirements?
Does anyone else think this is absolutely ridiculous? More proof that it would be really convenient if we as a people just simply vanished or at least stay firmly out of site. It would just be easier if we went the way of dodo–we need to be part of the past…and the past is an embarassment.
BTW, no one else has been tagged with this requirement.
Hey Drae. Guess that is one of the problems with being defined, rather than being the definer. The whole idea of depending on complete strangers to tell us who we are seems kinda odd to me. But very amusing. What was their definition of the other races?
Yes, that is a problem, isn’t it? A freedom that’s being violated–not being able to freely define oneself. I’m still not sure if this is a historic problem or still a present one.
Other races are defined as follows:
* “White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “White” or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.”
Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as ‘Black, African Am., or Negro,’ or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.
“Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes ‘Asian Indian’, ‘Chinese’, ‘Filipino’, ‘Korean’, ‘Japanese’, ‘Vietnamese’, and ‘Other Asian’
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as ‘Native Hawaiian’, ‘Guamanian or Chamorro’, ‘Samoan’, and ‘Other Pacific Islander’
“Hispanic or Latino” and “Not Hispanic or Latino.””[10] The Census Bureau defines “Hispanic or Latino” as “a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.
The last is defined as an ethnic group, not a race.
Note that no one else is required to maintain a tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Howzit Red Metis,
Did they define community attachment? I would say you are part of the Saponitown community. On the census you can mark more than one category. I wasn’t counted, or counted correctly, on the 2000 census. When I checked the stats for how many people marked the same racial categories as I did in my county, the result was zero.
I agree these definitions of identity are ridiculous, especially when you are outside the norm. A college professor told me about a student who was applying for a scholarship that paid 100% of the costs for graduate school for “minorities”, (not Asian or Caucasian). Her dad was half Ukrainian and half Siberian Eskimo, considered Asian. Her mom was half Brazilian and half Amazon Indian. “Indian” only meant North American Indian, and Brazilians were classified white, since they aren’t Hispanic. The prof offered to label the student Hispanic so she could get the scholarship. She refused on principle.
Heres my personal experience. I asked a college career counselor the definition of “minority”. I mentioned I was part Indian. She said I had to be enrolled in a federally recognized tribe to be Indian, which I’m not. I said I was raised Local, a Hawaiian island ethnicity, regardless of race, that has its own unique dialect, foods, holidays, humor, history, etc. She said that isn’t a recognized ethnic group. I said I was raised in the Hawaiian and Japanese cultures and have step family of those races. She said I had to be at least 1/4 Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry to count. I told her I was 1/4 western Mongol. She said I had to be raised in that culture, which I wasn’t. I didn’t even bother to mention my distant African ancestry. She decided I was white, something I have never called myself.
I had always marked other on those applications, but thats so ambiguous. Sometimes I mark Indian, sometimes Asian/Pacific Islander, sometimes I check both.
I guess some minorities are too small to be a minority.
Does this mean that if you had an affiliation or community attachment and you loose/abandon it that you are no longer an American Indian or Alaska Native? How many people does that exclude (especially like many people on this board) because we may not meet those requirements?
You are so right!! It is very stupid!
For instance, a Black person is still Black if he/she is or isn’t connected with the Black Community. Of course, we all know that if a person is mixed with Black, “this” country just labels them as Black.
Again, I will not deny my other racial connections but it is difficult to stay connected to only one group of people. That’s why many people are not affiliated with a particular tribe because people do move and connect with other groups of people.
BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER!
Hello Folks
I was glad to hear Spilleddi’s opinion that Saponitown is a community. This is a good opportunity to use all this technology to some real benefit.
Having been born and raised in Yankeeland, this was may first real exposure to the roots that the northern side of the family forgot to tell me about.
Because of the manner in which I was welcomed and helped by the people of this community, I have a sense of it being my community.
I wonder if an internal census might be developed at some time when resources permit. It could represent a form of documentation that you really do belong to a community. The BIA might not buy it, but I think it could be a benefit.
Best to all
Threecrows
No definition of ‘community attachment’. I’m under the assumption that the community itself would have to be federally recognized. I think this goes under a bureaucratic institution’s highest ambition is to make things as difficult as possible for absolutely no reason. That’s why I think we’d still be excluded. There’s no doubt that Saponitown is a community of people who share a common Eastern Siouan ancestry and culture. I do consider myself a part of that community, so I often will check American Indian (or I often will mark “other” as well).
I think the BIA likes to point out that the Indians want it this way, too. Meaning that you can’t be an Indian without an attachment to a genuine Indian culture. That might prove to be difficult when such culture has been (and continues to be) systematically destroyed. When I see wording like this on the form, it makes me think they have worked both ends to their advantage. They’ll be able to get their wish–extinct Indians.
Hello Drae
There is nothing in your remarks that I can disagree with except, for the wish to extinct Indians. ( Yes they do work awful hard at it.)
They may have the wish, but not the ability. They will never understand this, ever.
I would be awfully suprised to see Saponitown ever receive federal recognition, but what is more important to me, is that it has our recognition. It will be one of our major strengths as time passes. It will be recognized.
Best T.C.
Some definition was changed last year at my university that I thought was federal, allowing me to specify both my ethnic backgrounds. However, the situation might be different for students who access financial aide.
Techteach
Meaning that you can’t be an Indian without an attachment to a genuine Indian culture. That might prove to be difficult when such culture has been (and continues to be) systematically destroyed.
Now that can be a very interesting topic. Some cultures seem to be evolving into a sort of odd mix of dominant society beliefs and Native crafts. Is that genuine? Maybe it is, if enough people who live together say it is.
For example, (I don’t want to get into religion, but it’s the best example I can think of at the moment) because I am not of the Christian faith, I would not likely ever feel a complete sense of belonging among some of the communities of my particular set of tribal backgrounds. Not dissing anyone’s religious choice…but it is one of those obvious side effects of assimilation. The choices have changed. That may be comfortable for some folks…but can exclude others (unless they change their beliefs to fit the newly adopted ones). When it goes further and Indians berate other Indians for following the old ways. Game, set, match.
Perhaps the government passed the ball a long time ago.
This link is interesting; reminds me of the movie “Thunderheart” which I watched again last night. http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/28201619.html
The government rules are supposed to be to protect individual Indian cultures. And we all believe the government is here to protect the Indians. We also believe that the U.S. is a sovereign nation that will honor treaties with the Indian nations. I haven’t smoked any weed, ingested any drugs and have not injected myself with anything so I don’t have a clue why I would right such a thing. Maybe I’m just confused!
Wow great posts!! As I think about of this a few things come to my mind. Until we as a people except each other for what we are then there will always be a problem. As I have noticed and are currently experiencing that there are too many people telling other people what they are and what they a not. If you have native ancestry embrace it. Our native fore-fathers mixed with other races to include European and Africa peoples to create the beautiful people that we know on here as Saponitown members. Although some folks have a hard time excepting that fact it’s true. I think a lot of the “Eastern” tribes need to open there minds and hearts and start to accept more more new members and expand their rolls. There are a lot folks being turned away and denied membership that truly qualify as having native ancestry. Or in fact they are just ignored. Unless we become a united front then you can’t expect the government or anybody else to do the right thing.
Greywolf, the uranium mining thing is a very good example.
To me, that goes way beyond adapting modern tools and supplies to fit old jobs.
A profound change has already happened when such a core value (forgive the pun) is abandoned.
DHarden, I think you’re onto something about accepting each other. But we don’t need the help of established tribes and/or the government to do that. Probably have more in common with the very large number of unenrolled people than the very small number of Eastern tribal members. Wanting to be part of these little tribes almost seems like crashing a family reunion.
Saw some interesting thoughts recently about the Metis peeps in Canada. There was a suggestion that the U.S. mixed bloods might could unite in a similar way, instead of forming so called fake tribes or focusing so much energy on gaining acceptance from established ones. It was a good feeling idea to me. We have a tendency to accept each other on the spot, without question. Why not build on that?
This topic comes up every once in awhile here. My perspective is somewhat different than those already expressed. This will be in 2 posts. The first will give my perspective on how I refer to myself. The second will be something of an attempt to explain how the USA has dealt with the question of Metis or mixed Indian with other from an historical view. Here goes.
For whatever reason, my Indian ancestors chose to assimilate with white culture in the USA. The reasons for the decisions my ancestors are unknown to me, but the fact that there is Indian ancestry from several sources in both my parents’ trees was hidden or forgotten. After 5 or 6 generations in which even the ancestry has been forgotten, I choose to honor the wishes of those who chose assimilation: I refer to myself as having Indian ancestry, or sometimes I describe myself as Eastern Siouan Metis, a phrase that I believe Tom coined a few years back.
Further, my wife is a tribal member and grew up in the reservation system. The poverty and other circumstances under which she grew up, as opposed to my background, leave me no room to claim that I am Indian. Nor have I, unlike her, ever been discriminated against in job searches due to being Indian. My thinking is that it would be an insult to my wife and her family for me to find a handful of Indian ancestors when in my 40s and suddenly proclaim myself to be Indian just like my wife is. My thinking would be the same whether she had grown up as an urban Indian rather than in the reservation system.
I know who and what I am. My wife also knows who and what I am and accepts it. And that is all that is important, not what some government says that I am or am not. Government cannot change my ancestry, nor can I change the decisions to assimilate that my Indian ancestors made.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
