Canada's outing of "pretendians" may be right where they are taking reserved places but has CBC gone too far in persuing Buffy Sainte-Marie

It depends on the group, and no, it doesn't necessarily mean they'd be included. It means they are 50% genetically from a certain group. That doesn't necessarily give them any special rights, any more than someone being 50% genetically French.
There are groups that look at DNA, and there may be % requirements. In others, like the Cherokee, you have to be able to trace your ancestry through to certain historical documents.

The "one drop" rule wasn't a First Nations thing as far as I know in North America. It applied to black people in the US at certain times.

But she wasn't told any kind of story by her family. That's kind of the point. They all say she is the biological child of her parents. She's Italian-English, not adopted at all.

historically didn't they have the "one drop" thing? (or was that Apartheid South Africa?)

There was a photo of BSM's mother in that documentary. She looks just like her.

I have second cousins who are First Nations - 50% genetically which I guess clearly brings them into the fold. But how far does it go? Latest generation some will be 6% as great great grandchildren (I don’t keep in touch so I don’t know if any offspring had more First Nation ancestors). But there must come a point at which the link is too small?

There has been a lot of effort from First Nations groups in recent years around the question of what it means to claim that term, how people can be included (or excluded) and also more people in that community looking into claims that are questionable.

There are a few reasons, but a major one is that increasingly there are rights associated with being a member of an indigenous group. Not just in terms of things like scholarships etc for "oppressed" people, or preferring certain job candidates (which is a thing in North America.)

But also there are questions of being members of political assemblies, things like commercial fishing rights, access to special tax exemptions, and so on. These groups claim rights based on historic treaties, and have their own political organizations. So they need to be able to define who is and is not a member, in the same way that in a nation state you need to be able to define who is a citizen.

What do you mean by believing what she had been told?

May be there was a pragmatic ‘she is raising our profile’ acceptance of her. The flip side is that she is now raising their profile in a different way which might also be considered ‘useful’ to them but not so nice for Buffy.

it's a minefield for sure. But as always with these things i wonder why now?

You will rarely see "the First Nations peoples" all saying the same thing. There are a lot of them and they aren't a hive mind.

The family that adopted her as an adult seem to be standing beside her, which I imagine is largely about personal connections, but there are lots of other First Nations people who have been very active in uncovering false claims to First Nations ancestry, and are quite adamant that it's important that people stop dong it. Not just because they are "stealing opportunities" or something, but because it's a lie and fake.

There is some room for discussion around things like, what do you do with people who were raised totally separately from their First Nations roots, or what about people who have some FN ancestry, or people who have family stories but no real way to corroborate them or show them to be false.

But none of them seem to apply here, she seems to have actually invented the whole thing knowing it was false.

Fascinating, thanks.
I'm struck by the appropriation of "oppressed" status and the threatening of those who challenge it (either with smearing or legal threats). Also claiming "trauma" at the hands of those who object. Not to mention citing "good works" as a sort of magic wand waving device that makes people say it's complex. Oh and the claimed status being both unprovable and then verified on the basis of being "accepted" by verified members (i.e. "but these people have adopted me into their family" being the equivalent of "but lots of women accept me as a woman")
Maybe this is why ftm and mtf work in such different ways. Because of the dynamics of status. Mad.

it's difficult but i think, bottom line, if people are sucking up resources and opportunities that are intended for traditionally oppressed or disadvantaged people you have to "go for" them all and not just some.

So, yes, expose B S-M if the truth is other than she has told us over the years. In the knowledge that it is almost impossible to undo any harm she may have caused. And if the First Nations Peoples are saying "stop, she is one of us" we should believe them.

But then other "cheats" should be "gone after" with the same fervour. TW taking women's places, other people (Elizabeth Warren?) taking First Nation Peoples' opportunities, and so on.

Not just the low-hanging-fruit of an elderly lady.

https://quillette.com/2022/04/29/predators-dont-get-to-pick-their-pronouns/

Article discussing Gwen Bennaway, and others who made false claims about their heritage.

Well, Buffy Ste Marie is 82 years old, and it wouldn't have been unnatural if she'd died before this became public, and then she wouldn't have to deal with it at her present age. Whereas Jimmy Savile may be facing retribution elsewhere, but he got away with all his crimes here on this earth. Truly life is unfair.

There has been a great deal of consciousness-raising in indigenous communities in the last ten years or so, in the US and in Canada. This is the context in which she has been outed.

It's about time, imo.

Not related to this particular case, but I know a woman from a different part of the world who was born to parents from a small indigenous population (call it x). The parents had moved away before she was born, but she regularly visited her grandparents and other relatives there.

She told me that in the tradition of the x, to be a member of x you had to live the culture. If you did not, you were not a member, whatever your blood relations might be. So she was told that she was family, but not x.

It's somewhat ironic that in fact, Indian tribes (I'm not sure about the Cree specifically) did have a custom of adopting outsiders, often children kidnapped during wars but sometimes adults too. It was a way to keep up the community numbers when life was difficult, or to bring in someone who could do some practical good for the tribe, and to let families replace lost members. So in that sense, Buffy Ste Marie and her Cree friends were following genuine Indian tradition. But white people wouldn't really accept that--we'd say "She made friends with the Canadian First Nations people, but she's really an American of Italian descent". It all sounded much better if she claimed to be an Indian by birth.

What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Sometimes birth certificates can be unclear, but that does not seem to be the case here.

It is in the right place in the vault of the local public records, ordered correctly, consistent with others in the record and her siblings. There are none of the amendments or documents associated with either an adoption or a child that came across the border from Canada.

She claimed the hospital where she was born burned down, destroying the records. IN fact there was never any hospital in that place, and those records aren't kept in hospitals anyway. Similarly her claim that those records aren't open for her to see is untrue, by law they are.

She suggested she was taken up in the "60's Scoop" but was actually born too early for that to be likely.

And contrary to her claims, and what many people believe who are causally interested, there are actually very good records for First Nations children born in Canada during that period.

Basically, her explanation of the records doesn't stack up.

I haven’t watched the documentary, but it’s naive to accept that birth certificates are always a truthful record. From her photos, she is very striking , and looks First Nation to me, although appearance isn’t everything. There are interesting discussions to be had about identity, going beyond the level of appearance. My great grandfather was African, no one would know that from looking at me, but my sister very obviously had some African features. I think that affected the perception of others, and she directly experienced racism. I am very interested in that part of my history, not seeking to make myself special, but because my great grandfather had an extraordinary life, and his children and grandchildren , in the U.K. in the early 20th century, were marked out and mistreated because of their genetic inheritance. Many people have a history and life experience not immediately apparent. Unlike sex, race is quite fluid.

It's difficult to separate the folk music movement in the 60s from politics. It had a huge element that was focused on political activism. That was all wrapped up together, racial politics, anti-war, etc.

And Buffy SM was really an icon in the indigenous community, so it is going to be a really big story, and there are going to be loads of people who feel really betrayed or bamboozled by it. I imagine a lot of her activism was honestly meant, but that all seems tainted.

I would also say that she was very overt about the claim to First Nations identity. You get some people, like Jospeh Boyden, who claimed that heritage, but basically just wrote books about it. Other than that he seemed to live like any other North American person (like lots of First Nations people.) Buffy SM was very very overt in terms of things like dressing herself up to emphasize the indigenous link. It comes off now as having a constant, ongoing play acting quality that looks like a very complete sort of fraud.