I often “think out loud” on this blog. That’s been very useful as a way of getting feedback on work in progress; it also forces me to be both honest and careful with my words. The following is being shared in the same spirit: it’s related to teaching and writing in progress, but also to my participation on my university’s (informal) Indigenous people’s working group. It is thinking that’s very much in progress and subject to revision. I hope it contributes to fruitful conversations with others. I anticipate that this will be the first post of two or more, but I offer no promises on when the others may come.
Preamble: self-positioning
I should preface this with two notes: one on the relationship between these issues and the cultural and philosophical themes I more commonly write about on this blog; the other about my limited qualifications for writing about Indigenous issues. Regarding the first, my thinking here is loosely informed by my broader philosophical “project,” but I will leave that relationship for a follow-up post in which I’ll delve into some specific connections to environmental philosophy, poststructuralism, and the cultural politics of identity.
As for the second topic, I am not a scholar of Indigenous studies. I have participated in Indigenous solidarity groups over the years (going back to my activity with a group that solidarized with the traditional chiefs of the Mohawk Nation of Akwesasne at a time when that nation turned out to be in a state of deep civil strife; I learned how to remove myself from the crossfire when necessary). My research, going back to my Master’s thesis, has often touched on “indigeneity” as a concept, set of discourses, and ideal, both for “wannabe Indians,” environmentalists, and “regular [white] folks,” and for Indigenous people. The research for my doctoral dissertation included interviews with a handful of Indigenous leaders in Canada and the U.S., though only the U.S. part of that made it into the final product and the book that followed. But I claim no expertise, and certainly no Indigenous ancestry, blood, or identity. (Well, there were some efforts to look into what indigeneity may mean in my “ancestral homeland” of Ukraine, but those ended up more of a prompt for deconstructive critique than an ongoing pursuit.)
All that said, my commitments, as I have expressed them over the years, are toward decolonizing, which means, in part, learning to be an ally with Indigenous people in their struggles (with all the fraughtness that entails). And my own personal vision of a viable future is a reindigenized one, by which I mean
- A future in which Indigenous peoples, to the extent that they make up intact communities, have rebuilt their capacity for participating in the contemporary world as equals while living in consonance with their own traditions and cultures to the degrees that they see fit;
- A future in which Indigenous languages are spoken, taught, and learned, in places where they have been spoken for centuries (and not just by descendants of those earlier speakers);
- A future in which Indigenous views and perspectives are heard, respected, known, and engaged with alongside others;
- And a future in which society at large embraces basic principles of Indigenous thought, such as the virtue and wisdom of living with the land, learning from the land, and acting with multiple generations in mind.
Living in Vermont, and working at the state’s flagship land-grant university, whose land-grant status was founded on a “gift” of land essentially stolen from Indigenous nations, has made it important for me to embrace the question of what it means to decolonize and reindigenize here, in this place. That’s where things get challenging. The remainder of this post goes into one particularly vexing question that faces anyone who tries to deal with the issue of how to “decolonize” and act as a “settler Indigenous ally.” (I use the term “settler” knowing full well that my parents came to North America not as settler colonists but as wartime refugees, but that they and I have benefited from the settler colonial state of Canada, and more recently, in my case, the United States.)
That question is: Whom do we support and ally with, and how do we navigate the fraught relations among and between different groups of identifiable (or self-identified) Indigenous people?
Considerations and guidelines
To begin to answer that question, it’s necessary to spell out some of the concerns and considerations that frame any discussion of universities and Indigenous people. Here are some that do that for me. They can be considered a set of proposed “guidelines”; comments on them are welcome.
1) Institutional responsibility: Vermont’s largest university, a public university with a land grant mission, has a responsibility to recognize not only the aboriginal history of Vermont and the land the university is situated on, but also the descendants and representatives of that history. As has become evident recently, the entire land-grant university system is built in part on land stolen from Indigenous peoples, part of a “land grab” carried out in part through an act of congress sponsored by Vermont congressman Justin Morrill. That means we who work and study here have an obligation to know and account for that history. Those whose scholarship and pedagogy is oriented toward a more place-based and eco-politically just and sustainable university have no alternative than to do that.
2) Indigenous self-definition: Knowing whom to recognize as Indigenous can be confusing for outsiders, and questions about Indigenous identity are ultimately best answered by Indigenous people themselves, collectively. That said, claims to Indigenous identity have been complicated by colonial processes, including warfare and cultural genocide, settler bureaucratization, the capitalist economy and its various (often perverse) incentives, and white romanticization of “the native” (in its late 19th century form, its post-1960s New Age form, or more recent forms of “self-indigenization” and “race-shifting“). In Vermont, up until the 1970s (and since at least the earliest decades of the twentieth century) there were no recognized organizations that could have been approached on these questions. At least two, the Odanak and Wolinak Abenaki of Quebec, were located both outside the state and outside the United States, with the national border complicating matters (as they have since then). Struggles for federal and state recognition have therefore been contentious and complex (which leads to the next two points).
3) State and federal recognition: As a state university that receives (limited) public funding, we have a responsibility to work with the federal government and with the state of Vermont. The federal government has not recognized any Indigenous groups in Vermont, despite efforts by the latter. The state of Vermont initially also ruled against recognition, but in 2011 and 2012 recognized four representative organizations, the bands or nations of Missisquoi, Koasek, El Nu, and Nulhegan Abenaki. Understanding governmental recognition to be settler-colonial, we cannot take these decisions as a “final word,” even as we should be informed by the details of these processes and their complex dynamics. All else being equal, however, it is right to treat them as a kind of “minimum” when they are decided in the favor of Indigenous peoples.
4) Scholarship: As scholars, we have a responsibility to be informed by the most current scholarship, even as we recognize that scholarship continually evolves and rarely arrives at a definitive end-point. This means being informed by the work of scholarly historians, anthropologists, and others who study the history of relations between people including Indigenous people, and between people and the environment. It also means being informed by Indigenous scholars and others in the field of Indigenous studies, and by current debates on Indigenous sovereignty, land rights, repatriation of land and of material culture, and Indigenous identity and the virtues and pitfalls of various methods of claiming and establishing it — methods that include genealogy and tribal membership, but also, and more controversially, blood quantum, DNA testing, self-indigenization, “pretendianism,” “race-shifting,” and “Métissage” (with its supporters and detractors). These are hot topics in some places (and becoming hot here), and very much in the news, and until the dust clears, it’s not always obvious which way the dust around them will settle. But we must be aware of them, prepared to engage with the issues they raise, and conversant with scholarly and Indigenous perspectives on them.
5) Trust-building: As scholars, we need also to be aware that non-academics do not always trust what we academics say and do, and that indigenous people in particular have many good reasons not to trust us. So we must recognize that trust-building is both a crucial and a difficult, even fraught, process. We at the University of Vermont have (arguably) begun to build trust with Vermont’s state recognized tribes, but there is much more work to be done in that respect. As for building trust with those located outside the state of Vermont but with clear historical connections to this land, let’s just say that we have hardly begun, but that there is no ethical way around that task.
6) Civic relations: Finally, we are not just scholars and representatives of the university. We are people and residents of this place. In my case, I have only lived in Vermont for 18 years (and in the United States for 21 years), but I have grafted roots in this state (in part via marriage) that are generations deeper, and my position as an environmental activist and theorist obligates me to care for the cultivation of respectful and appropriate relations with others around me including Indigenous others. My own privilege also carries responsibility with it. So there’s more at stake for me here than just what I think and say as an academic. Something like that probably applies, to one degree or another, to most of us at my university, and certainly to those on the Indigenous people’s working group.
What happens when one of these guidelines contradicts another? In a follow-up post, I intend to address some specifics pertaining to the Vermont case and some scholarship related to it. But that may be some way down the line, as the scholarship is ongoing and the entire issue requires more time for digesting and addressing with the care and respect it deserves.
Note: The photo above is of Rock Dunder, or Odziozo’s island, where Odziozo (Odzihozo, Oodzee-hozo), the Abenaki transformer, is said to have laid himself to rest after shaping the mountain and valley landscapes of what’s now Vermont, in the land the Western Abenaki (Alnôbak) called Ndakinna.
I am puzzled that someone who has lived in the United States only 21 years feels qualified to judge recognition of tribes that worked for roughly 36 years to achieve recognition from a government that basically destroyed much of our history and our people for over two hundred years.
It is obvious that many academics have hopped on a “hot” issue that will sell books and bring notoriety. What is unclear is what responsibility scholars will take for denying descendants their heritage. It should be a natural right for our citizens to stand tall as who we are without answering to those who are not directly involved in the recognition process. The laws are clear on who has that power and it does not include academics who will simply move on to a new topic when this one no longer draws interest.
To see some of the issues at hand, please consider reading “The Not So Invisible Border”, by Jeanne Morningstar Kent, B.F.A., M.A., Ed., http://www.morningstarstudio9.com; Author of “The Visual Language of Wabanaki Art” (History Press)
Jeanne – Thanks for your response. But your comment leaves me puzzled. Where have I “judged recognition” of any tribes, or “denied descendants their heritage”? (And where have I broken any laws?)
I do not think I suggested you broke any laws but other academics have pointed to the four bands by name, calling us “fakes.”. This is demoralizing and breaks the very trust you say you wish to establish. I am aware you have not done this but we are puzzled by the idea that academics feel better positioned to judge Native identity than the long established government processes which investigated history and family ties.
On an other matter, you may wish to explore UVM’s historical involvement with the eugenics project which targeted Natives, Canadians and citizens deemed infirm.
Jeanne – You explicitly stated that “someone who has lived in the United States only 21 years [i.e., me] feels qualified to judge recognition of tribes.” But perhaps you just meant that because I am an academic (which sounds like an exotic species, doesn’t it?), I must agree with “other academics” who’ve called the four bands “fakes.” I have never called the four bands anything like that, and have repeatedly stated I’m not qualified to make that kind of judgment.
If you are referring to Darryl Leroux, then it’s best to refer to his work specifically. He is one academic, and his work (as I understand it) is mostly critical of fellow French-Canadians (like himself) who claim Indigenous ancestry based on one or two very distant ancestors out of thousands. When such people shift from identifying as “white,” “European,” “French-Canadian,” “Québecois,” “Euro-American,” et al., as their ancestors have, to identifying as “Indigenous” (Métis, Abenaki, et al.), that qualifies as “race-shifting.” His work has clearly resonated with Indigenous people who find the work useful, including the Abenaki of Odanak.
I myself am not qualified to judge Leroux’s work, as it’s not my field, but I am aware of others within Indigenous studies, including Indigenous scholars, who value it and cite it favorably. I’ve only read one or two scholarly critiques of his work (e.g., by self-identified Eastern Métis scholar Seb Malette and his co-authors) and have not found those very convincing. But I remain open-minded. The arguments are complicated, and I expect they will remain debated for some time.
You say you are “puzzled by the idea that academics feel better positioned to judge Native identity than the long established government processes which investigated history and family ties.” Unfortunately, as I think you know, government processes have a mixed history, one that has largely been highly unfavorable to Indigenous people (to say the least). And even the government (federal and state) processes pertaining to Vermont’s now state-recognized four tribes have been contradictory. Moreover, those processes have always relied on the work of academics. So it shouldn’t be puzzling that academics will continue to debate them. They are, after all, the “experts.”
What’s different here, I think, is that academics’ work is being publicly shared in ways that impacts non-academic communities. I recognize that that’s tricky territory, and that’s why I have been careful in articulating my own thinking about all of this. (If you’ve read through my two lengthy posts on the topic and now this lengthy response, then I thank you for giving your time to it.)
I am aware of UVM’s historical involvement with eugenics and agree with the university’s apologies for that history. While it’s not my area of expertise, I also know that eugenics in Vermont did not explicitly target Abenaki people (they are not mentioned in the state archives), most likely because they weren’t believed to reside in Vermont at the time.
We now know that Vermont’s Abenaki history is long and complicated, and I welcome the opportunity to hear from those who are clearly part of that history, who have felt shut out of the broader Vermont conversation up to now. If there are tensions or contradictions in the truths being told by different parties on these topics, then it may take time to work out those tensions. But I believe that Vermonters are capable of hearing, talking, and thinking them through, and that descendants of Vermont’s Indigenous peoples will benefit from the process in the long run. I remain committed to that, as a Vermonter and as a supporter of Indigenous peoples.
Kwai, Adrian
It is truly a pleasure to have an intelligent discussion on this matter. I hope you look back and note that I did add that you were not the the “academic” to whom I referred. I use the term only because there seem to be so many now that naming them all become cumbersome so I refer to the authors and researchers only as a group which falls under “academics.”
I do realize the flaws in the government. So many and that is where the problem lies. As noted in my thesis, chasing individuals is like playing “whack a moles”. Get rid of one and two more pop up. Resources would be better directed at the laws that allow the alleged problems. Accusing people who have gone thru a government process and met the requirements may be considered “fakes” by some, but if we have met the letter of the law, then we should not be accused, defamed or otherwise publicly shamed. It is wrong to intrude in other people’s lives in such a manner. But more than one has done it and for a lot of years. The effects on people’s lives is disruptive.
When and if they (academics and others) have proven to the courts or legislature that the bands should not be recognized, then it can be announced to the public. Until then, it is wrong to defame people who are simply going about their lives in a peaceful manner. It is little more than harassment.
The Cherokee Scholars Statement on Indigenous Identity and Sovereignty aptly states that “Any person who publicly identifies as Cherokee has initiated a public discussion about their identity. It is appropriate to ask such persons to explain the verifiable basis upon which they are claiming a Cherokee identity. If they cannot substantiate that they are a Cherokee citizen, they should be clearly and directly asked to cease identifying as Cherokee.”
And I think that is true regarding self-identifying as someone with a connection to any tribal nation.
It isn’t harassment. It’s part of our culture, especially when one understands the genocidal diasporas we have experienced. Of course, when the unfounded claims of someone self-identifying as “Abenaki”, “Cherokee” or any other tribe are questioned/challenged by an actual Abenaki or Cherokee, the person with the vague claim and no connection is going to balk and cry “harassment”. It’s highly typical.
That does not erase the importance of being able to back up such claims with solid documentation from the tribal nation in question, kinship ties, legitimate tribal community belonging, etc.
When non-Indians go into tribal communities to extract knowledge and culture under false pretenses of kinship or friendship and then use them to play Indian elsewhere, this contributes to the genocide of the actual Indian people involved. It is not ok. It deserves to be challenged. And the states actually have no constitutional right to be doing what they are currently doing, ‘treating’ with these groups as if there were actual tribes. That is reserved for the federal government to do, and there is an OFA process for a reason.
Something I hope to see remedied soon, formally. For the protection of all legitimate Indian people, who have somehow managed to survive the hundreds of years of genocide against us. CPAINs (corporations posing as American Indian Nations) are slowly attempting to erase us by replacing us. In our own ancient homelands, no less.
A very sad state of affairs indeed. Soon the things stolen from our cultures will be distorted beyond all recognition, as many already clearly have been, actively contributing to our erasure.
Legitimate Indian voices matter. We are blessed to have many wonderful and decolonizing allies who understand that. We are grateful.
I find it interesting that anytime someone responds to those demanding “proof” of heritage, it is designated “typical of race shifters.” If there is no response, people are “hiding”, if there is a response, it is dismissed as not being Native. Currently, SOME Natives are as guilty of gaslighting and distributing false information as anyone. I would think that when a group wants to reclaim tribal lands and make new laws, that telling the cooperating government that they are corrupt, “have no right”, ” it is not constitutional” or other insults would be counter-productive to negotiate them.
People trying to understand the situation from all sides are blocked from panels when asking questions Native Dissenters do not want to discuss or hear even while accusing “race shifters” of being less than transparent. Fortunately, Not all Natives feel the same. There seems to be an age line that determines thinking among tribal members. Older tribal people understand better than younger ones, some of the ramifications of creating hostility between leaders. They tend to be more accepting, more inclusive of descendants than millenials. Younger people who have not suffered the treatment older members have, are ironically the ones making the loudest most war cry about how THEY have suffered. Asked about their elders, they are dismissive and show no respect to them. Not even pipe carriers. It is really sad that some traditions are being used as reasons for creating chaos while true traditions are being dismissed. One does not pick and choose traditions and call themselves Native. Bloodline, genealogy…none of it matters if the rest is pushed aside in favor of acting more like colonials seeking power, land or money in reparations for something they personally have not suffered.
States have long had the right to make and enforce laws, and govern their own separate from the Federal government. The more that is detailed in the Constitution, the more government control over all concerned. Perhaps the goal is to reopen the Constitution. That might invite the government to follow the historical attempts to dissolve tribes all together.
While dissenters currently feel that sovereignty overrides colonial government, it actually has to work in tandem with it. Since colonials gained dominance over this country, Natives have suffered badly, but Natives still do not have dominance. We have the sovereign right to negotiate WITH the government of the United States. Not to override it. When that power relies upon the ability to negotiate, creating chaos among public citizens and defaming their own descendents , is hardly the way to garner favor.
Just my thoughts.