Race, Ethnicity, Indigenous Peoples and Politics

L01 - From history to hashtags: Thinking through Indigenous identities

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 08:30am to 10:00am | Location:

Sponsor / Commanditaire : CPSA Reconciliation Committee - Comité sur la réconciliation de l'ACSP

Chair/Président/Présidente : Christine Sy (University of Victoria)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Christine Sy (University of Victoria)

Indigenous identity has become a prominent issue in mainstream and Indigenous media.  There is much interest in the issue of “pretendians”, and much less interest in the colonial context of processes of identity recognition, or in how identity is understood and enacted by Indigenous people.  The state initially treated all Indigenous people as “natives” or “Indians” and subsequently distinguished between Indians, Eskimos (now Inuit) and Metis and metis.  The distinctions were generally driven by race/ism and money:  Indigenous people were usefully considered less developed and thus less competent than Euro-descended people to govern territory or engage in substantial political and economic relationships.  As the state occupied Indigenous territory, it also sought to reduce its financial obligations to those natives it confined to reserves, often via treaties but with the coercive assistance of the army and the police.  Thus, identifying categories of natives had financial implications, depending on whether they were considered to be part of a treaty arrangement, or whether they were less “native” because of having European ancestry. This panel will show that Indigenous identity has been in transition for the duration of colonialism, a struggle in which Indigenous peoples have sought to control and animate particular iterations of identity, while the state has sought to limit and eliminate it.  The primary factor in complicating, restricting and eliminating recognition of Indigenous people and peoples has always been the settler state in its processes of colonialism.  

Indigenous Identity: Who Counts, Who Decides, and Why: Joyce Green (University of Regina)
Abstract: Abstract: This paper takes up the subject of Indigenous identity, which has been constructed by colonial actors and institutions. It has been defined restrictively through notions of race and patriarchy. It has been politicized and often denied. Colonial repression has created boundaries dividing Indigenous peoples from each other; from family and kin, from relationships, and even from identity. Identity boundaries have been erected by the settler state to regulate us, to limit our numbers and state liability, and to guard against our rights and resurgence, too. Even Canadian constitutional recognition limits us to three categories acceptable to the state. Some Indigenous nations and communities also regulate identity. If Indigeniety is about relationships, as some have asserted, there are also many who claim Indigenous identity who have tenuous relationships with recognized Indigenous communities and categories. In particular, many who are part of the “Sixties Scoop” and related policy practices cannot offer a detailed account of their origins to sustain their Indigeniety. Some Indigenous people seek to name and shame Indigenous identity theft. In a context where fake Indigeniety is foregrounded, those who cannot account for their origins can be caught up in the fervor of stopping Indigenous identity fraud. While objecting to Indigenous identity fraud and the support of poseurs by Canadian institutions, the paper also considers the denial and abuse of those who cannot prove their provenance.

Moral Craftwork and News Coverage of Indigenous Identity: Brooks DeCillia (Mount Royal University)
Abstract: This paper explores the investigative reporting surrounding the Indigenous identities of Buffy Sainte-Marie, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Vivian Timmons, Michelle Latimer, Carrie Bourassa and Joseph Boyden. Using an original content analysis of news coverage of stories questioning the Indigenous identity of prominent Canadians, the coming pages examine the moral craftwork at play in this type of investigative reporting. Theoretically, the chapter relies on the conceptual framework of Glasser and Ettema’s (1994) understanding of investigative journalism. Glasser and Ettema’s work posits that reporters are both dispassionate and objective observers, operating “as a custodian of conscience” (p. 338). In this way, journalists “make moral claims without appearing to make moral judgments” (p. 337). This paradigm contends that investigative reporting (1) objectifies morality by “transforming moral claims into empirical claims,” (2) privatizes morality by often “secretly” devaluing or undercutting the “ostensible meaning of what is being reported,” and (3) narrativizes morality by framing or “symbolically ... cast[ing]” people in their reporting as “innocent victims and guilty villains” (p. 338). Using a classic content analysis of investigative stories and commentary (N = 110) about six high-profile Canadians who had their Indigenous identity scrutinized in the last decade, this paper finds that the coverage spotlights some details while leaving others in the dark. Moreover, the reporting — sometimes nuanced — uses empirical language to make moral claims and relies on narrative to tell stories of innocent victims and guilty villains. 

Canada’s Regulation of Indigenous Identity: Land, Money, and Patriarchy: Daniel Sherwin (Carleton University)
Abstract: This paper traces the Canadian state’s regulation of Indigenous identity. It gives particular attention to the category of Indian Status, and shows how colonial understandings of “Inuit” and “Métis” are defined, in part, through partial inclusion in the “Indian Status” framework. The regulation of Indigenous identity cannot be disentangled from Canada’s broader settler colonial project of dispossessing and disrupting Indigenous peoples’ land-based legal and political orders. But settler colonialism is not static. Tracing the relationship between “status” and land, money, and gender can help uncover settler colonialism’s shifting logics. This paper distinguishes between three major paradigms of state-First Nations relations: the treaty paradigm, the Indian Act paradigm, and the devolution paradigm. The treaty paradigm establishes obligations between non-Indigenous states and Indigenous communities who determine membership within their own forms of political collectivity. The Indian Act paradigm, by contrast, forges a tight link between a patriarchal conception of Indian Status and an imposed form of political collectivity – the reserve-based Indian Band – while targeting both Bands and Status Indians for elimination. The devolution paradigm detaches Indian Status from Band membership, but in ways that tend to preserve the legacies of the Indian Act approach in terms of land, money, and gender. Drawing on a political development paradigm, this chapter develops an analytical narrative of the gradual and uneven transitions between the three paradigms that highlights the core themes of land, money, and gender. 

Un/becoming: Amanda Buffalo (Independent )
Abstract: This paper offers a reflection of a kind of interoception and ‘embodied learning’ experience on the subject of an Indigenous identity crisis. The experience represents a thousand saltwater ceremonies, a million quiet conversations, an unquantifiable depth of self-reflection, and the gentle and loving support of a family and community. Through these pages I have chosen to share my personal reflections on my identity and experiences as a displaced Indigenous person navigating connections to community, land, culture, and most recently, the academy.  In this work, I explore how identity impacts Nation building and sovereignty in Indigenous communities, and how these are affected by cultural teachings and language. My embodied learning experiences involve deep struggles with my displacement from my land, culture, and community. Through this, I reflect on Indigenous processes and concepts of belonging, connection, and relationality that also comprise sovereignty. Digging deeply into my own struggles with identity and belonging, this chapter is also an exploration of the ways in which displacement have shaped my identity and fueled my commitment to community.  Weaving my identity through stories and language, this work reflects on a lifelong journey of learning and applying the teachings of Dena Au’nezen (the highest law of the Kaska Dena) and Dena K’eh (the Dena way) in my community and work. Attuning to the teachings and grace of my Kaska Elders, this work is a reminder that identity is a phenomenon that is always contextual and deeply, deeply relational. In the last few years, the question of Indigenous identity has been largely focused on representation, recognition, and stories. Conversations about Indigenous identity have shifted away from our connection to the land and have become more national in scope.