4. What do you think is more important in determining Indian "authenticity"?

a). having "treaty status"
b). Looking "real" Indian

4. Should US born children of "illegal Mexicans" be granted instant citizenship?


Return to Cyber Debate	Respond to Question 4

Question:
Response:

Responses:
(NOTE: hit RELOAD on your browser to see your new contribution)

This one's tough for me. My father was First Nations, not tribally registered, but I never knew him and was raised without any knowledge of Native culture. Having always had the choice of whether to identify as Native or not (visibly passing, not-quite-not-white), I'm always ambivalent about which is the greater disservice to my Native ancestors -- to count myself among a cultural group when I have never suffered the enforced tribulations of those who don't have the choice of whether or not to "pass," or to let people assume the apparent fact of my supposedly white identity rather than speaking and fighting as a woman of color.

- Sunday, September 21, 1997 at 15:40:04 (CST)

I do not see why they would not be granted citzenship otherwise. They should be ale to live here. If the parents are illegal they are obviously running from something back home that they didn't like.
<cs005g@uhura.cc.rochester.edu>
- Thursday, September 25, 1997 at 22:24:38 (CST)

Conditions of authenticity of membership in a nation or tribe should be left up to the groups themselves. Recognition of a group of people as a nation is a political matter to be negotiated diplomatically as the US does with any nation or people. Any children born in the US should be granted citizenship, as should anyone who so desires and is willing to abide by the terms of citizenship.
<Brian Goldfarb>
- Friday, September 26, 1997 at 10:17:07 (CST)

4. having treaty status/yes why not.

- Tuesday, October 07, 1997 at 09:50:50 (CST)

a). having "treaty status"

- Tuesday, October 07, 1997 at 09:54:37 (CST)

both are kind of equally crappy characteristics, aren't they? the treaties that were signed are not being fulfilled and even if they were we can't change the fact that two very different cultures met and white people took over aboriginals and basically gave over a few token payments that they are comfortable with. also, just what does a "real" indian look like? us born children- why shouldn't they? maybe we should just destroy all the borders around the globe and let people go wher they want to?
<daryl>
- Wednesday, October 08, 1997 at 19:41:51 (CST)

I would go for " a). having treaty status" Because I'd never want to have dark skin and bushy long hair even though I am Native. Children born of " illegal Mexicans " should be granted instant citizenship because they were born there . Damn It!!!!
<Stephy acoose>
- Tuesday, October 28, 1997 at 14:39:35 (CST)

having treaty status mexican children should be citizens why not

- Wednesday, November 19, 1997 at 20:17:38 (CST)

For one who is to say what a "real indian" looks like, because if we go by Hollywood we would all look like Chuck Conners or Anthony Quinn, etc. Also having "treaty status" dosn't really solve anything. Look at Shania Twain, She has status because her adopted father was Native. I think it should come down to is simple "if you are you are" and not let someone else tell us how much blood is legally required to be considered Indian Yes! because that child was born in that country

- Wednesday, January 21, 1998 at 16:53:14 (CST)

1) Authenticity is not a matter of determination. It is a matter of fact. 2) US-born children shouldn't need to be "granted" citizenship; it's theirs by birth.
<wylam@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
- Saturday, February 07, 1998 at 23:34:13 (CST)

first: I like the answer 'not about determination, it's a matter of fact'. However, being a born follower of sorts, I will relegate myself to having what I admittedly saw as bizarrely limited options: I'm also inclined to dispute both, a) because treaties are still routinely violated by greedheads, and corruption ensures that no part of their premises are consistently respected; b) although it makes identification easy for a lot of people, I frequently see a lot of danger in the ideas of 'style over substance' or 'image is everything'. but anyway... overall, I think I'd pick b), because whether it is deemed that an exploited-and-violated-even-when-NOT-convenient treaty can be applied to anyone is fairly irrelevant, whereas having the ability to outwardly display heritage/identity/respect for one's ancestors' culture(s) seems increasingly valuable, esp. in the face of the egregious appropriations perpetrated upon so much beauty...
<ianus@elwha.evergreen.edu>
- Friday, April 03, 1998 at 01:56:31 (CST)

second: well, yes, as far as what is simply DESERVED, they're born here, they're citizens. But obviously, as far as The Law around here is concerned, "if their parents weren't legal residents, they shouldn't have procreated" or some other such bullshit.
<ianus@elwha.evergreen.edu>
- Friday, April 03, 1998 at 02:09:33 (CST)

I think treaty status means more to groups politially than the way they look. But the question has two shit bound answers so what do expect us to choose, option "c" ? Yes, illegal children are born in this country by whatever means the mom and dad have. they must work hard to survive like the rest of us.

- Monday, June 08, 1998 at 14:52:12 (CST)

Absolutely, citizenship for all. In fact, just by virtue of having broken through the border, the "illegal" immigrant should be granted citizenship on the spot by an able and willing border patrol agent.
<mestrada@vt.edu>
- Friday, July 10, 1998 at 13:12:01 (CST)

Not sure about "authenticity." Ask? I thought that everyone born on US soil was a Natural Citizen; am I wrong on that?
<Lucas Grzybowski - ltg8986@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
- Thursday, July 16, 1998 at 13:50:19 (CST)

Hell no. Hospitals shouldn't let illegals in to their maternity wards. Illegals should be rounded up and deported. We send 'illegal' drug users to jail for years, screw them for life. But border jumpers are overlooked.

- Wednesday, August 05, 1998 at 00:45:38 (CST)

The whole process of the illegal (according to indigenous and white law) acquisition of land and seas must be returned to. A maximalist approach, not a mininalist approach to a 'treaty'. Indigenous people should be allowed to once and for all determine who they are. What is an 'authentic' white look anyway? Adolf Hitler? Should US born children of "illegal Mexicans" be granted instant citizenship? If you consider the process by which the land was taken 'illegally' Mexicans have a legal status that goes back well before white nationhood!
<v.hart@qut.edu.au>
- Saturday, August 15, 1998 at 23:57:17 (CST)

Neither treaty or appearance seems without distortions,yet the fudge has got to be cut somewhere...what's one more caste for you or your nieghbour? What"s the policy of 'illegal' immigrants's children in Canada?
<michael m>
- Saturday, October 17, 1998 at 01:21:34 (CST)

Who are these people who answer 'having treaty status'? Gimme a break. There are many Indigenous people in Canada who do not have treaty status. And for those who've forgotten, up until 1985, non-aborignal women who married Aboriginal men (who were legally recognized by the Canadian government as having Treaty status - or being 'legitimately' Indian) became 'Indians' with all of the Treaty Rights that come with having that "Status". Meanwhile, all Aboriginal women who had Treaty status but then married a non-Treaty man, was stripped of her recognition in Canadian Law as being a Treaty Indian and thus, was stripped of all her Treaty Rights as were her children. I know an Cree man who happens to have Treaty Status (not all Crees do) who married a white women in 1984. By law, she became a Treaty Indian. They divorced a couple of years later but she's officially an Indian for the rest of her life, here in Canada, getting her post-secondary education paid for (a treaty right). Meanwhile, all of those Aboriginal women and children who were stripped of their Treaty rights once a non-Treaty man entered the picture have been spurrned in their communities of origin, now that they've tried to return after 1985. They're called Bill-C 31's meaning it was with the passing of bill C-31 that they were finally able to apply for their rights back. I have treaty rights and in many respects am grateful for this. However, I'm not a Nationalist of any sort - no matter how you cut it - and the divisions within the Aboriginal communities here in Canada makes me physically sick. I'm sick and tired of self-righteous Treaty stance which presumes that "I have Treaty status, therefore I am an authentic Indian". With the loss of so much culture in such a short period time, I see too many Indians clinging to the governments legal definition of who they are to give them some sense of legitimacy. Having Treaty status is a political tool - use it, and use it well - but don't presume it gives you a personal cultural identity.

- Saturday, October 24, 1998 at 21:16:23 (CST)

I don't think either are of importance in determining an "authentic Indian". The Indian Act determines who is a treaty indian and looking like a real indian does not mean anything. The importance is to believe in the Indian way mentally, culturally and spiritually and to recognize, respect and be proud of where your roots come from.
<Amber LeMouel [alemouel@internorth.com]>
- Wednesday, December 23, 1998 at 15:05:09 (CST)