Blood quantum

[Neesika]

Uhm... the link actually makes it even more inane. It's so... racist/ethnist.

Ayup. I don't think my interest in the topic is inane, but I agree that the subject matter is inane.

What is that saying... sneaky like a bull in a china shop? Like a queen in a Republican politician's office?

Note, I did not say subtle. Subtly is impossible on NSG.

[Fassitude]

Ayup. I don't think my interest in the topic is inane, but I agree that the subject matter is inane.

Your interests seldom are. Outside of cunt, that is.

]Note, I did not say subtle. Subtly is impossible on NSG.

It's not impossible. It's just wasted. (And prune your quotes, dammit!)

[Neesika]

We would not be entitled the land and resources we are entitled to were we not the original inhabitants of these lands. Our entitlement has been legislatively linked to our blood quantum. Is blood all that makes us Indian?

Wrong choice of nation on my part. I'm British so when I say Indian I'm actually talking about residents of India.

Ah. Around these parts we like to clear up just these confusions with the convenient acronyms DNF (dot not feather) or FND (feather not dot).

I'm unsure why being of the original people of a nation should entitle one to anything. We don't go looking for Celts to grant them preferential coal mining rights.

Perhaps because we continue to exist as cohesive cultural groups with our own legal orders and systems of governance that, while under attack for hundreds of years, have retained their resiliency? Not to mention the fact that we have Treaties, and a common law relationship with the Crown (in Canada) based on the fact that the vast majority of land in this country was not actually acquired by said Crown, even according to said Crown's rules of land acquisition? And as a liberal democracy with a set of legal principles it aspires to apply consistantly, the Canadian government has been attempting to reconcile aboriginal rights and obligations of the Crown towards aboriginal peoples?

[
If a nation does decide to go down such a route then I'm unsure there is any better route than blood, if a person has diluted blood then I figure it's a good indicator that they come from a family fully integrated into the rest of Canadian society and would be less likely to require the entitlements.

A full-blooded Indian can just as easily be completely non-Indian culturally, depending on the circumstances in which she or he was raised. There are any number of 'diluted blood' Indians (I look specifically at the Mohawk for example) who have very strong ties to their aboriginal communities. Should the one have 'status' while the other loses it? If our culture dies out completely yet our bloodlines remain pure, are we still Indian?

[Tech-gnosis]

We would not be entitled the land and resources we are entitled to were we not the original inhabitants of these lands. Our entitlement has been legislatively linked to our blood quantum. Is blood all that makes us Indian?

Blood may not be the only thing, but it does seem to be one of the most important things. I mean you are linked to the individuals who first settled the land by ancestral ties. Its also easier to verify, through birth certificates, then say those who live an "indian" lifestyle, performs tribal rituals, ect.

Anyway, what alternatives do you prefer?

[Neesika]

Your interests seldom are. Outside of cunt, that is.

Cuuuuuuunt...

It's not impossible. It's just wasted. (And prune your quotes, dammit!)

I do not know of what you speak.

[Aelosia]

You North American people and your barriers. here we have full blooded white, full blooded black, and "morenos", that comprises everyone mestizo, mulato, zambo, etc, etc. Those are no blacks anymore, but mixed. Anyway, any of those antique labels are offensive because they refer to our slavery/conquista past.

Skin tone classifications are worthless.

[Neesika]

Blood may not be the only thing, but it does seem to be one of the most important things. I mean you are linked to the individuals who first settled the land by ancestral ties. Its also easier to verify, through birth certificates, then say those who live an "indian" lifestyle, performs tribal rituals, ect.

Anyway, what alternatives do you prefer?

I think it is inappropriate to look to things like skin tone, to determine membership.

I think it is inappropriate to look only at blood quantum, to determine membership.

Neither of these factors tell you about that person's culture.

All of our nations had clear protocol on making someone a part of our nation. Along with membership came certain responsibilities towards the community. If those responsibilities were met, you retained your membership regardless of your origins.

I believe that there should not be external mechanisms determining our status. I believe those mechanisms should be internal, and very much tied to community involvement.

However, because the stakes are high and status is linked to resource allocation, there is incentive for communities to restrict membership in ways which are discriminatory. I believe we need to account for that, but I do not trust the government to make better, less discriminatory choices.

[Tech-gnosis]

All of our nations had clear protocol on making someone a part of our nation. Along with membership came certain responsibilities towards the community. If those responsibilities were met, you retained your membership regardless of your origins.

Can you give examples of such protocols and responsibilities. Depending on there extent I don't see why one who meets them must necessarily be culturally Indian.

I believe that there should not be external mechanisms determining our status. I believe those mechanisms should be internal, and very much tied to community involvement.

However, because the stakes are high and status is linked to resource allocation, there is incentive for communities to restrict membership in ways which are discriminatory. I believe we need to account for that, but I do not trust the government to make better, less discriminatory choices.

I highly doubt the government will wish to remove external mechanisms to determining status that entitles someone to government resources.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

People care about things you don't. I'm surprised you just don't move on.

How habitually insipid of you to think I don't. That does not prevent me from commenting, especially not as the OP and I go back (hi Sin, long time and all that!). So, perhaps you should move on and not bother us with such pointless comments? But then, you'd not have much to post... which you should ponder.

Flamebaity much?
All you seem to care about is provoking negative reactions out of people.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

At what point are you not black?

The point at which you have literally 0 DNA from your black ancestors. This means that, technically, everyone's a little bit black. Genes are quantized, not continuous.

[Neesika]

Can you give examples of such protocols and responsibilities. Depending on there extent I don't see why one who meets them must necessarily be culturally Indian.

The Gitksan of British Columbia, for example have a ceremony called the Dim D’aphl Wilp where someone is added to a House through adoption. If it is a child being inducted into the parent's House, the ceremony is Sihlguuhlsxw diit. There is another ceremony, the Ts’imil guudin ts’im wilp which is a special process for taking someone into a House. You can become a member of a House if you marry in as well. In fact, there are any number of specific circumstances where you can become a member of a Gitksan House, as laid out in Gitksan law.

You cannot be Gitksan unless you belong to a House. When you belong to a wilp, or a House, you have certain very specific responsibilities/rights (fishing in this territory, responsibility towards certain families, the right to certain intellectual property and so on). Each House has a certain territory, and certain reciprocal relations with that territory.

You do not have to have a certain blood quantum to become Gitksan, but you must uphold your responsibilities as a member of a Gitksan House. You would not lose your status as Gitksan if you did not meet these responsibilities. There are many ceremonies and protocols for dealing with people who don't meet their responsibilities, and can include consequences such as having your responsibilities turned over to others (with an accompanying loss of rights). Your rights/responsibilities hang on your cultural participation. What makes you Gitksan, or Cree, or Mohawk, or whatever is not how much Indian blood you have, but how integrated you are into the aboriginal community, and I think membership should reflect that.

I highly doubt the government will wish to remove external mechanisms to determining status that entitles someone to government resources.

The problem is, in most cases these are not actually government resources, as in they do not emanate from the government. Rather they are our resources, administered by the government. Ineptly. I advocate for more local control, and distribution according to our own membership rules.

[Nodinia]

At what point are you not black?

As most "black" people are some shade of brown, probably at the starting point.

[Neesika]

This is the 1/2 black Haille with her 1/4 black daughter, Nala.



Not black?