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

[IwantToRetire]

I think I have read a bit about instances of "pretendian" where Canadians have claimed Indigenous heritage to get college places etc..

But without knowing the truth about Buffy Sainte-Marie didn't she in fact make a name for herself because of her talent, or are they implying she would not have been as famous as she was if she hadn't claimed Indigenous heritage?

If true is it as bad as Rachel Dolezal's deception?

In all honesty I dont know that much about her, but CBC thought it important enough to do a whole investigation into her. https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/buffy-sainte-marie

This is her statement in response. Even if you aren't on facebook you can just dismiss the sign in box. If you click on the image of the statement it should bring up a larger version, though still hard to read. https://www.facebook.com/BuffySainteMarie/posts/pfbid02LLqDomVDQaBdU2UxJ4jkSXxQGB4R5PR6paSgwLEUWJFJZ5xcCx4BVWLYkrH7f2G6l?locale=en_GB

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.

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.

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

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.

In this particular situation of Buffy Sainte Marie I am not sure what to think.

It maybe that she grew up genuinely believing what she had been told. And once set on that path found it easier to stay with it and, as happened, have others confirm her as Indigenous.

This maybe influenced by those accusing her are in fact her brother who she alleges abuse her, and now his children.

And if in fact deliberately a false claim to an identity, although unacceptable, it isn't as though she took educational grants or other assets intended for those who had a genuine claim. More that she falsified her identity to advance her music career. Which means she will never know whether she become well known and applauded for her actual talent or for getting well known for her USP.

All very sad.

And can see that even the suggestion that she misled must make some of those from the community she claims to be part of very bitter or angry.

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

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.

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

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

About her heritage obviously as this is the issue being discussed.

Not wanting to trivialise the thread, but lots of people grow up and through their family are given to understand their heritage is this that and the other, but often these are family myths. But for the child growing up and hearing these family stories, this is the reality of their life. So if later it should turn out to be wrong, how do you get your brain and memories to erase that sense of who you are that you have had since you first able to think about it?

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

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.

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.

They all say she is the biological child of her parents.

They say / She says

That's what the issue is. She claims she was told different, and that those trying to smear her now are the part of the family that support the brother who abused her.

So unless you have some totally unique connection to the various family groupings, we can only say, as I have done, this is what she says. Or as you have done, this is what they (the brother's supporters) say.

Why would they lie? Especially since there is every indication she is lying about all the facts that can be established? Things she said were simply false.

It would be completely bizarre to have a child, and then tell her that she was adopted and from a totally different ethnicity, while treating your other kids family normally. And when it would be so easy for said daughter to check. Yes, people are weird, but there is no evidence to support that apart from her ever-changing story.

That's the other thing, if her story was true, she could have likely found out a lot. But she didn't, and what's more over the years her story changed. She claimed to be from three totally separate First Nations groups, that aren't even close to each other.

It raises some interesting questions about the public though. About why people feel like they are so interested in someone billed as "an Indian girl" when her music was the same if she was Italian-English girl.

I see a lot of that with musicians now, they are all billing themselves, if they can, as an ethnicity or other group identification. Indigenous artist being a big one in North America, but also African-American (or Black) or Queer or whatever.

She claimed to be from three totally separate First Nations groups, that aren't even close to each other.

She gave her explanation for that which if you followed this thread from the start you would have seen.

As I keep saying, I am not necessarily believing her. I am just reflecting on the questions it raises.

Why dont you just write a post saying this is what I (ie you) know to be the truth based on what I (ie you) have read (assuming you have read her statements) because I (ie you) have read statements from and ___ who I (ie you) know is the actual truth.

She doesn't need to make statements, a simple DNA test would clear it up.

I won't hold my breath.

Thanks Arthurbella.
This an excellent article that covers so much more than I expected from the title. Its a great go-to for an overview.
One for the resources folder!

She's very obviously a pathological liar and a grifter. She invented an entirely fake backstory for herself. It's honestly shocking that people are believing this tissue of lies, and the yet more and more lies that she's coming up with to cover for the original lies.

For her story to have any truth at all, literally everyone who knew or met her in her early years would need to be involved in a mass conspiracy against her, which also somehow involves a faked birth certificate, fake school records, etc. Because otherwise the facts just don't reconcile. And she's changed her story so many times, she can't even keep her lies straight.

It really disturbs me how white women get away with this shit and people make excuses and bend over backwards for them. Just white privilege in a nutshell.

Look at Rachel Dolezal. She lied as part of a money-making scam, and because she believed that black people were unfairly advantaged. When she was 23 she actually sued a university for "anti-white racism", claiming that programmes that exist to support black students was discrimination against her as a white person. So clearly until she was at least 23 she did consider herself to be a white person and did not think of herself as a black, or identify as black, or have confusion about her background. It's pretty telling that she only come up with the scam of pretending to be black after her money-grab "I am being discriminated against because I am white" lawsuit. Pretending to be black was just another way to scam money, IMO. She also faked having cancer. Yet people still defend her and bend over backwards to come up with an explanation other than "because she's a lying grifter out for money."

I'm non-white and something I notice a lot as a minority which really bothers me is that any time anyone is accused of racism, like clockwork, you get loads of white people online who have basically gone out and found one minority who doesn't mind whatever the thing is, then they parade that person around and use them as a justification for racism and a way to attack those who actually are bothered by it, and cast those calling out racism as the ones who are actually being racist.

The whole "well Actual Token Non-White Person doesn't mind which makes it Officially Not Racist" is a really well-known tactic.

I see it on MN and elsewhere all the time, "Well my black friend doesn't think it's racist so actually you're the ones being racist by virtue signalling about something Actual Black People don't mind." Clearly assuming the other poster must be white.

Or "I don't see race, so actually I'm the one who is not being racist, and anyone who calls me racist is the real racist because they're making everything about race."

This is actually happening with regards to my own minority group right now, there's a film out that contains a very well-known racist stereotype, and one minority person associated with the film defended it and said it didn't bother them, so now every comments section is full of white people howling "But Actual Minority said this stereotype was fine so actually the real racists are the ones critiquing it, because they're trying to speak on behalf of Actual Minorities, who think it's fine, everyone else is just bandwagon jumping in order to virtue signal." When the vast, vast majority of people from that actual minority group think it's racist as fuck, and the practically all the comments online decrying it are from people who are actually from that minority group. There's a lot of people online who seem to assume that everyone online is white and that minorities can't possibly log on to articulate their feelings.

Minorities aren't a hive mind. I'm uncomfortable with the implication that tribal people are cool with her lies just because her own close friends made one pretty nebulous statement in support of her, and that it's white people making a fuss in order to virtue signal. Clearly a lot of tribal people are furious at her, or deeply upset and feel betrayed, and maybe some do have more pragmatic feelings or just don't care. Because tribal people are people just like anyone else, they're unique individuals with their own individual opinions and perspectives.

I'm uncomfortable with the implication that tribal people are cool with her lies

Where has anyone said that?

"Minorities aren't a hive mind."

Neither are white people.