"Actual Indian" defined
In Jocks Aren't Good Role Models, a correspondent questioned my use of the term “actual Indian.” She thought I was referring mainly to “full-blooded” Indians. No, I wasn’t—not even close.
In this blog I’m usually inclusive about whom I label an Indian. The short version of who’s an “actual Indian” is “anyone whom Indians accept as an Indian.”
More precisely, when Indians talk about who’s an Indian, here’s what I think they’re talking about—and therefore what I’m talking about. I’d say anyone who meets one or more of these criteria qualifies as an Indian.
1) Anyone who’s an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe.
2) Anyone who has the genetic markers (i.e., “blood”) of an Indian based on objective evidence—for instance, a DNA test, CDIB (Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood) card, or genealogical records. How much “blood” is enough is an arbitrary and changing standard that only Indians themselves can decide. The CDIB card requires 1/4th Indian blood and many Indians would agree that that’s enough.
Note that this standard doesn’t require people to know about or participate in their traditional cultures. Although being part of the culture is certainly a major factor in how “Indian” a person is, it’s not an absolute requirement.
3) Anyone who is recognized by a Native community or a group of Natives as an Indian.
I believe these were roughly the standards laid out when the Ward Churchill controversy arose. Three of the four standards, anyway. The fourth standard is one that many Indians and I don’t necessarily buy. That standard is declaring oneself an Indian, as Churchill did.
Many wannabes declare themselves Indians after finding a “Cherokee princess” in their family tree. Perhaps they’re even correct that they have one or more Indian ancestors buried in their past. But as I’ve said before, a few drops of Indian blood isn’t enough to make one an Indian.
Who qualifies
How do these standards play out in the real world? Considers several people whom we know to have Indian ancestry:
Elvis Presley
Burt Reynolds
Wayne Newton
John Herrington
Johnny Depp
Sam Bradford
In the case of Presley, Reynolds, and Depp, I’ve never heard that they declared themselves to be primarily Indians. Nor have I heard that Indians declared them to be primarily Indians. If they’re not recognized by the Native community as being primarily Indians, then I don’t consider them primarily Indians either. They’re simply white men who are part Indian.
In the case of Newton and Harrington, I believe they do consider themselves Indians. And the Native community also recognizes them as Indians. Therefore, they are Indians by my inclusive definition.
Growing up, Bradford apparently didn't consider himself an Indian. And he doesn't have more Indian blood than the others. But since he's an enrolled Cherokee, he counts as an "actual Indian" too.
Conclusion
So to address my correspondent’s concern, “actual Indian” does not exclude most mixed-blood Indians. I’d say mixed-blood Indians are actual Indians if they meet one of the criteria listed above. Again, the only people I’d exclude are those who aren’t enrolled members of a federally recognized tribe, have only a tiny amount of Indian blood, and aren’t acknowledged or accepted by their Native peers.
All clear?
For some of our previous debates on the subject, see Educating Russ on Who's an Indian.
In this blog I’m usually inclusive about whom I label an Indian. The short version of who’s an “actual Indian” is “anyone whom Indians accept as an Indian.”
More precisely, when Indians talk about who’s an Indian, here’s what I think they’re talking about—and therefore what I’m talking about. I’d say anyone who meets one or more of these criteria qualifies as an Indian.
1) Anyone who’s an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe.
2) Anyone who has the genetic markers (i.e., “blood”) of an Indian based on objective evidence—for instance, a DNA test, CDIB (Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood) card, or genealogical records. How much “blood” is enough is an arbitrary and changing standard that only Indians themselves can decide. The CDIB card requires 1/4th Indian blood and many Indians would agree that that’s enough.
Note that this standard doesn’t require people to know about or participate in their traditional cultures. Although being part of the culture is certainly a major factor in how “Indian” a person is, it’s not an absolute requirement.
3) Anyone who is recognized by a Native community or a group of Natives as an Indian.
I believe these were roughly the standards laid out when the Ward Churchill controversy arose. Three of the four standards, anyway. The fourth standard is one that many Indians and I don’t necessarily buy. That standard is declaring oneself an Indian, as Churchill did.
Many wannabes declare themselves Indians after finding a “Cherokee princess” in their family tree. Perhaps they’re even correct that they have one or more Indian ancestors buried in their past. But as I’ve said before, a few drops of Indian blood isn’t enough to make one an Indian.
Who qualifies
How do these standards play out in the real world? Considers several people whom we know to have Indian ancestry:
Elvis Presley
Burt Reynolds
Wayne Newton
John Herrington
Johnny Depp
Sam Bradford
In the case of Presley, Reynolds, and Depp, I’ve never heard that they declared themselves to be primarily Indians. Nor have I heard that Indians declared them to be primarily Indians. If they’re not recognized by the Native community as being primarily Indians, then I don’t consider them primarily Indians either. They’re simply white men who are part Indian.
In the case of Newton and Harrington, I believe they do consider themselves Indians. And the Native community also recognizes them as Indians. Therefore, they are Indians by my inclusive definition.
Growing up, Bradford apparently didn't consider himself an Indian. And he doesn't have more Indian blood than the others. But since he's an enrolled Cherokee, he counts as an "actual Indian" too.
Conclusion
So to address my correspondent’s concern, “actual Indian” does not exclude most mixed-blood Indians. I’d say mixed-blood Indians are actual Indians if they meet one of the criteria listed above. Again, the only people I’d exclude are those who aren’t enrolled members of a federally recognized tribe, have only a tiny amount of Indian blood, and aren’t acknowledged or accepted by their Native peers.
All clear?
For some of our previous debates on the subject, see Educating Russ on Who's an Indian.
posted by Rob at 11:05 PM
8 Comments:
Ah, thanks for the explanation. :)
Rob,
I fully agree with your criteria as to what constitutes an "actual Indian" - and I firmly believe that the "actual Indian" community would also agree wholeheartedly.
I have a somewhat weird blood quantum: 21/32's Oglala Sioux. I do not know what the odd number over the even number connotes. A few assholes have cracked wise about it over the years, but I still find it a little puzzling.
@rob "3) Anyone who is recognized by a Native community or a group of Natives as an Indian."
Remember that white New Ager guy who claimed he was Indian due to past life souls/spirits, etc? Who was apparently welcomed some by a tribe? I guess this rule makes him an Indian.
I'm a 1/4 blackfeet by blood, and can prove it with genealogy. I've only recently been able to consider myself "Indian", as I was raised white (which I've always despised being). I'm learning about my heritage, and practicing it as much as possible @ home (central Indiana).
If I were to move to my rez, would I be rejected out of hand?? I know I have a lot of learning to do and trust has to be built. Or am I just another wannabe who should shut up sit down and stay white? Am I insulting the people by calling myself one of them??
I don't know about your case, Joseph. I'd say it's on the borderline. You have enough Indian "blood" to be accepted in some tribes but not others. But you were raised white and have no connection to your Blackfeet heritage (other than what you've learned on your own).
According to Blackfeet law
http://www.aaanativearts.com/article1029.html
you might be eligible for tribal membership. If you were enrolled, I'm guessing people would accept you as a long-lost relative. If you weren't enrolled, I'm guessing they wouldn't accept you until you proved yourself over many years.
Rob,
Perhaps you can help me with something--or maybe not. I'm not Native, not a little bit, not at all, and don't claim to be. My husband, however, has some Native ancestry. Here's the trouble -- his grandmother was 1/4; her father was 1/2 Indian, and was born somewhere in Indian Territory in the late 1800's. He never spoke about it to the children and said it was for their safety and protection, and it was better they didn't know. If he didn't tell his own kids what tribe he was born to, the odds of him telling a census taker in 1900, 1910, 1920, etc. are slim to none.
In other words, we don't know any more than that, and barring some miracle we will never be able to find out--the only person who knew was my husband's great grandfather who has been dead for the last 70 years or so.
My husband has always valued his Indian heritage (as did his mother) and spends a lot of time researching language and culture, and to me it seems sad that someone in his situation should be put down and denigrated as a 'wannabe' when he had nothing to say about the decisions his ancestors made a hundred years ago. It isn't his fault that he doesn't know what tribe could claim him. He's doing the best he can with the information that he has.
It hurts me, on his behalf, that he would be put down and rejected for circumstances beyond his control. What about "people who know little or nothing about their Indian heritage" through no fault of their own, who would remedy it in a heartbeat if they could?
Maybe I'm a bit angry over the use of a numerical value to define who my family is or is not. It is not a piece of paper nor a nahollo idea like a blood quantum that make me who I am.
Chata ohoyo sia. Ich bin ein Deutsch. That is who I am.
I am heartened that some can see that is possible.
Omg. You crack me up. Thanks for putting a smile on this Native American film-maker's face. Keep those passive-aggressive comments coming. I usually agree with you but not always. You're still a wasicu. Thx, Damon Runnignhorse-Buckley. cinemabrule@gmail.com
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home