PowWows.com - Your source for everything Pow Wow since 1996

kiowakat

Indianz.Com > News > Tim Giago: Claiming Indian status to get ahead

Tim Giago: Claiming Indian status to get ahead
Monday, January 28, 2008
Filed Under: Opinion

There is a recurring problem in Indian country that has been a bother for many years. I hear Native Americans discussing it oftentimes with a lot of anger. It’s a very touchy issue and some would even find it offensive, but it is not a problem that should not be addressed.

The problem involves those people claiming to be Native American although they are not enrolled with any particular tribe. Every Indian nation in America has definite criteria for tribal membership. The tribes have set these limits for a reason. Tribal members can vote, they can run for elective office, and their numbers are included when the tribe plans its annual budget. And for those tribes with successful casinos that make per capita payments to tribal members, proof of membership is critical.

Certain services are allowed for tribal members, services such as health care, scholarships, and housing. And in order to avail themselves of these services each individual must show proof of tribal enrollment. There are also jobs available that entail priority hiring for tribal members. Tribal enrollment is highly valued in Indian country because it establishes the individual’s ties to his or her Native nation.

But, in these days of the burgeoning success of some Indian casinos there is also the problem of disenrollment. Some tribes have been accused of removing members from their tribal rolls either for political or economic reasons. Those that have been removed accuse the tribal leadership of reducing the rolls so that fewer members can draw larger per capita payments. California seems to be leading Indian country in this regard.

The problem that seems to be the biggest problem in Indian country is that of individuals claiming tribal status in order to secure highly desirable jobs. Ward Churchill, a man who held key job positions at the University of Colorado, has never been able to prove tribal membership and yet he was given jobs that could have, and probably should have, gone to legitimate members of a state or federally recognized tribe.

Indian educators have come across this problem frequently. A man or woman is given a key job position at a major university based upon their claim to Indian blood, but they cannot submit proof of that claim. Some Indians blame the university for not having firm guidelines in their hiring of Native Americans. For example, if one applies for a job with a federally recognized Indian tribe where Indian preference is the rule, that individual must submit proof of tribal enrollment.

A recent article in the journalism blog of Richard Prince about a gay Native American that had just been named editor and vice president of the Arizona Republic newspaper brought immediate questions to my mind.

The man named Randy Lovely said, “I don’t want to overstate or understate my Native American heritage. Both of my parents are of Cherokee origins and my family comes from East Tennessee. I am not a member of the tribe.” If not, why should it be announced that he is openly gay and a Native American? Whether he is gay or not is not the question. The question is that at some time in his application for the job he must have listed himself as Native American. If he admits that he is not enrolled as a Cherokee, why would he do that?

There are many reasons why an individual may claim Indian heritage and yet not be enrolled. Maybe they do not meet the criteria demanded by the tribe, or maybe they just have not bothered to find out how one can become enrolled in the tribe in which they claim membership. But surely most people can see that it is extremely important to all legally enrolled members of tribes that there be a distinction.

I have heard some people claiming Indian heritage say that they did not want to be insulted by going through the Bureau of Indian Affair’s criteria for tribal membership and it just goes to show their lack of knowledge about the process. It is the Indian nations that determine membership, not the BIA.

If one has a legitimate reason to claim membership in an Indian nation there is a procedure to prove that claim. Every tribe sets its own rules and regulations and I would advise anyone with a legitimate claim to find out about this criteria.

The surest proof of membership, and most tribal members know this without a doubt, is one’s relationship to the tribe. Everyone one of us that is enrolled with a tribe can name our family members usually for a couple of generations. And more than that, our family lineage is known by the elders of the tribe. They can name many of your family members, maybe even some that you do not know about.

As I said, it really doesn’t matter if Mr. Lovely is gay or not, but it does matter whether his claim of Native American heritage is true or not. Anyone can claim Indian blood but as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.

Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota, was born, raised and educated on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. He was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard in the Class of 1991. He can be reached at najournalist@msn.com.

Blackbear

You beat me in posting this. Very nice article presented in a clear and simple manner

__________________
Don't worry that it's not good enough for anyone else to hear... just sing, sing a song.

RainbowSpiriDancer

Thanks for this post. It answered a question that I had about the purpose of tribal cards.

RainbowSpiriDancer

Also, I've often wondered why so many people are fighting tooth and nail to start a tribe and get a tribal card. In my neck of the woods, that's all I hear about is tribal cards, lately. Now I see!

pow-wow person

start a tribe?

Skabewis

Sioux Falls, South Dakota (AP/NFIC) 5-09

A federal judge dismissed a key charge April 30 against one of two men accused in the 1975 slaying of a fellow activist American Indian Movement member.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol filed an order dismissing one count of aiding and abetting murder against John Graham, who faces federal murder charges along with Richard Marshall in the slaying of Annie Mae Aquash on the Pine Ridge Reservation.

The two men had faced murder charges in 2003, but Piersol threw out the original indictment because it didn’t show that either Graham or Aquash belonged to, recognized by, or affiliated with a federally recognized tribe. Tribal status or affiliation gives the federal government jurisdiction in the case.

Graham is from the Tsimshian Tribe in Canada’s Yukon territory and Aquash was a member of Mi’kmaq Tribe in Nova Scotia.

Federal prosecutors said Graham shot Aquash because AIM leaders suspected her of being a government informant. They said Marshall gave Graham a .32-caliber revolver and shells before the shooting.

Federal prosecutors re-indicted Graham and Marshall, combined their cases and appealed Piersol’s ruling, saying Graham could be tried because another co-defendant, Looking Cloud, is an American Indian. A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis has yet to rule on that appeal.

But Piersol agreed with defense lawyers, who argued that federal law requires membership to a federally recognized tribe. The issue appears not to have ever before been litigated in the history of the 130 years old Major Crimes Act.

“There is no authority for this proposition, and the Court rejects it,” Piersol said.

In dismissing the charge, prosecutors now must prove that either Graham or Aquash was part Indian at the time of the killing in order to maintain other parts of the case.

Pierson said in his order that two other charges against Graham will likely be dismissed, though the state of South Dakota could try him. He also scheduled a hearing to discuss whether Graham and Marshall’s trial should be separated if charges are dropped against Graham.

U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley said he appealed the dismissal of the third count to a federal appeals court.

The trial was scheduled to start May 12.

IlnuSoldier

Aquash.... Aquash....

... I am Mi'kmaw and I have to say that her death is the NAIL IN THE COFFIN for 99% of this bulls**t...

It is the nail in the coffin for the whole "status debate"
It is the nail in the coffin for the whole "pan-indianism debate"
It is the nail in the coffin for the whole "L.Peltier debate"
It is the nail in the coffin for the whole "AIM debate"
It is the nail in the coffin for almost everything...

R.I.P. Anne-Mae--- an Indian woman who was killed by so-called "Indian Leaders" of the "movement"--- proving that it is all just a giant lie.

You want to know why I don't give a ***t about pan-indianism or aim or any of that ?

Because a bunch of "respected" AIM members -AND LEADERS- raped and killed one of MY PEOPLE when she was justing trying to help.

Her death shows all of these debates as what they are : A lie.

But it does prove one thing : The ideology of "status" is a government created and maintained device to keep ndns oppressed.

Non-Mi'kmaw indians killed Anne-Mae and SOOO MANY OF THEM got away with it.. many of them are still considered "leaders" or "martyrs" for "the cause".
SCREW THE CAUSE...

Those leaders need to be held accountable for raping and murdering her.

RDNKJ

Interesting (and sick) phenomenon. Over the years I've known a couple people who decided they were going to "claim NDN" in order to get a job (or some other benefit). In my experience they were incredible racists, who felt that somehow the deck was stacked against "us poor white people." Of course, it never occurred to them that maybe they didn't get the job because they weren't qualified or (more likely) their personality was such that the potential employer didn't want to deal with them. They are the same people who think that y'all get a big check from the government every year, get free college education, etc...

Some people are just twisted.