Tansi,

As usual the topic of "full bloods" versus "mixed bloods" is disturbing. It is disturbing for a number of reasons the main one, to me, being that there are people alive today living on reserves who had no control over who their Ancestors had children with and yet here we are holding them to an incredibly unreasonable expectation?that they should be held responsible for the marriage/procreation choices of their Ancestors and pay for these choices through social & political ostracism from their bands which translates into real disenfranchisement from claim to their Ancestral homelands and perpetuates the false European idea of ?race?.

Blood purity & the idea of race as we now know it on Turtle Island are both European constructs. These constructs were originated by European thinkers in order to justify the racial hierarchy they then used to justify the colonization and genocide of the indigenous people of the lands they invaded. It was intended to give them a moral and biological high ground, and is not grounded in any real scientific truth. Certainly there are phenotypical differences between people and groups of people, but these differences in essence are as skin deep as they look. That is, there is more in common, genetically, between ethnic groups than there is not in common regardless of variability that allows us to ?mark? this ethnic group from that. Any true, ?racial? differences between ethnic groups would result in an inability to produce viable offspring. Thus the idea of first having "pure blood" is a fool's claim. Unless you were there for every single copulation of every single Ancestor from the beginning of Creation, you cannot make the claim of "blood purity". Indigenous people have been intermingling for millennia?with other bands and other tribes?either willingly or unwillingly. Trade systems and migratory routes brought many people into contact with others. More recently, we have been intermingling with non-indigenous people for several hundred years.

Traditionally and historically the majority of indigenous cultures do not have the concomitant European idea of "race" and "blood purity"; these ideas were imported into our communities starting in 1492 in their nascent forms by Europeans whose social organization with its strict pyramidical, nonegalitarian, non-tribal hierarchies required the creation of blood lines that would isolate social power to a few elitists. By making the claim that blood lines could be "pure" and then by restricting definitions of legitimate offspring as the products of the "breeding" of a select few and then backing that claim up at the point of a sword, they assured that their monopoly of socio-political power was entrenched into their cultural fabric.

The current individual sitting on the throne in Buckingham Palace did nothing to earn that position?she was born into it. In the traditional Cree way leadership is earned, not handed down. Those who demonstrate ability in leadership are recognized for it by a natural process of consensus?someone notices that a person is good at something, soon people start to come to that person for advice. Leadership that is hereditary is not so reliable in producing leadership that is effective, responsible, or knowledgeable and is less reliable in reflecting the consensus of the community. Of course, for many tribes, hereditary leadership can be dissipated & relocated to another individual when the heir-incumbent proves to be inept (there are precedents that have been set because tribal communities are traditionally not comprised of the rigid and fixed social norms that, say, European hierarchies commonly & historically have had). Not so with leadership passed through "blood lines" like with foundational European forms of social organization?the community is pretty much stuck with whoever has been born into the position.

The idea of ?blood purity? has long been used to legitimize the oppression and even genocide of other groups of human beings (Armenian Genocide, Rwanda?s ethnic cleansings, the Jewish Holocaust, the African Disapora, the social stratification and slaughter of ethnic and ?commoner? Europeans). It in some way assumes a more authentic claim to one?s place on planet Earth. This Earth is all of our Mother, home to all of us and our very fact of being born on Her and from Her is all we need as a legitimate claim to assert our right to be here, our inherent right of access in a respectful way to Her resources.

Also in the Cree way, because the Earth is our Mother, all of us are related. The Plants are our First Ancestors. The Animals are our Cousins. All people, though not of our cultural group, are children of the Mystery. We often fight with each other as the other Animals do, but unlike other Animals we fight over things that are uniquely human: like pride, material greed and blood purity. This conflict regarding blood purity is not indigenous to many of our communities, but is present largely because of more recent definitions and concepts that we have allowed to colonize our communities and disrupt our traditional patterns, norms and values. That is, blood legitimacy was never an issue until there started to be a monetary and material consequence attached to it...things that, again, were imported into our communities by Europeans whose interests lie in alienating indigenous people from both our cultural traditions as well as our Ancestral claims to the land.

Previous to the Indian Act, indigenous people all across Canada and all across Turtle Island, were intermingling with each other as we have always done, as well as with non-indigenous people, without thought of the consequences because there were no immediate or apparent consequences on the level that we are now discussing. Cree freely intermarried with our traditional enemy, the Blackfoot with whom we made war but with whom we also made treaties, marriages and alliances. One of our greatest leaders in recent history is Poundmaker who was Stony & Metis. He was raised by his Plains Cree relatives and then adopted by a Blackfoot chief with whom he lived for a while before becoming a chief himself and representing the Cree in negotiations.

Some of this intermingling was taking place within the context of some Ancestors making conscious choices to marry white...making conscious choices to assimilate both culturally and biologically for their own reasons, some of which, I would venture to guess, were influenced by residential school experiences which taught some of them to internalize the hatred of the whiteman for indigenous people. Some no doubt saw it as a survival tactic for their children to be of bi-cultural backgrounds.

Some of this intermingling was no doubt the result of customs in which it was not unheard of for women to marry non-indigenous fur trappers and traders for political advantages, for example to solidify alliances. Given the political savviness of our Ancestors, this was, perhaps, inevitable. The fur trade saw a significant number of Indigenous-European conjugal unions....the descendants of which are considered either Metis or Aboriginal, depending on the course of their own local history and politics. Some of it was no doubt forced upon indigenous women, and some of it was no doubt not given too much thought, certainly not the thought we now put into it.

Like Poundmaker, I come from a multicultural family myself. On my mother's side (she comes from a rez in northern Manitoba) is my maternal grandfather who had an Anishinaabe mother and French father. His father was not in his life so he was raised by his mother along with his siblings up in northern Manitoba. My mosum grew up speaking Cree and Soto but not English?he didn't go to residential school and was not a Christian. My maternal grandmother was Swampy Cree (one of those so-called "full bloods") who spoke Cree, Soto and English and was a Christian/traditional mix of spirituality and custom. On my father's side (he is from a rez in southern Saskatchewan) is Plains Cree, Blackfoot, Lakota, Asiniboine/Stony and French according to the genealogical documents our band registrar sent to me upon my request.

My mother spoke three languages (Cree, Soto and English) but my father only speaks English?both of them went to residential school. He for ten years and she only for several. I was raised with my siblings up north to think of ourselves as one hundred percent Swampy Cree, not Soto and not French and not Metis and not Blackfoot and not Asiniboine. I have cousins who "look like full bloods" but who are even less "pure" than me while in the same vein I have cousins who can pass for white but are culturally Cree?they think Cree, act Cree, sound Cree, speak Cree, live Cree which raises the question: what does it mean to be Cree? Certainly it means something that Europeans with their superficial and fallacious ideas of ?race? cannot hope to (and should not) legislate or define or influence. We should be doing that and if we are to be true to our traditional Ancestral heritage and values & belief systems, then we need to come at it from the way the Old Ones would come at it.

According to the current European originated "blood quantum" standards for calculating "blood purity", I am 3/4 blood, or 75%, Aboriginal; according to my Band, I am 100% Cree. According to these same standards my white-looking Cree-speaking cousins up north are less than "half breeds" and don't have status. Don?t have status because my maternal kokum married my maternal mosum who was bicultural and whose mother lost status because she had children with a whiteman; because their mother, my aunt, married a whiteman and never bothered to try and get her status back which would have been gotten through her grandmother, my great grandmother; but before all this, it is mainly because of the Indian Act which was written by whitemen and ratified without one single First Nations person?s input and which completely and totally ignored previously established patterns and tribal customs regarding lineage and how lineage was established.

In a Cree world there would be no children who are born ?bastards? because lineage would be traced through the mother regardless of her married or non-married status and there are no questions of ?blood purity? because race is a non-indigenous concept. In a whiteman?s world any child born out of wedlock was a social outcast, a bastard because European culture and religion is patriarchal, but more, is sexist and discounted the power of the womb to hold the story of lineage. In the indigenous way all children are sacred and gifts from the Creator, legitimate because the Creator created them; in the European way children are property with more or less value depending on their social status, illegitimate because, in their culture, social status depends heavily on the degradation of others and the elitist monopoly of social power.

In any case, knowing how human beings are and how north my maternal side ranged in northern Manitoba I would not be surprised if I had Dene and/or Inuit somewhere in my family tree on my mom's side.

That being said, there are isolated communities still where there has not been that much intermixing with Europeans, if any. However, this is no longer the norm for the majority of our communities and the majority of us are products of our Ancestors' choices in reproductive partners, which included non-indigenous people. I, personally, am of the mind that genetic variability is healthier for a species. Just look at how bottleneck societies can be crippled by the lack of genetic variability?in-"breeding" makes them weak, not strong. My Ancestors were strong, not weak. They had to be strong to survive those thousands of years (without modern amenities many of which I believe are crippling us, culturally and character-wise as well as physically. But that is another post). They did not fear inter-"breeding" because they knew that Cree is Cree, no matter what and that language, custom, spiritual beliefs and value systems were essential to being Cree; if you knew none of these things that were Cree, then who were you?

I am also of the mind that blood doesn't mean much when that person's mind is colonized and they are more assimilated in terms of politics, culture and value systems than a "half-breed mutt" who speaks their own language, is loyal to the death to their First Nations people, has internalized the traditions and customs and value systems of their people and who are not trying to be white and who are not seeking validation from whites as I have seen many self-proclaimed "full bloods" do, "full bloods" who are Christian, speak English, aspire to walk like a whiteman and who internalize white ideas of race and racism while rejecting their own people and their Ancestors? spirituality.

Certainly there is something beautiful and meaningful worth passing on in terms of genetic legacy, but having indigenous DNA does not mean that child will automatically know her language or customs. She needs to be taught those things. And it is in the teaching of this knowledge by those who know where the true essence of indigenous culture lays. After all, it is in our languages, our value & belief systems, our spiritualities, our traditions and our cultures that much of our true identity as First Nations people is contained. Blood is only part of it...culture is where the meaningfully lived, day-to-day differences are encapsulated.

Having said that, I think that there is a real threat contributing to the dissolution of the already tenuous indigenous solidarity there is because of biocolonialism?because of European ideas of genetic ?purity? that have invaded our communities?and it needs to be discussed in length and with a mind and an eye to how our Ancestors regarded these issues, not ignored and not reacted to. There is a legitimate concern circulating within First Nations communities that people who have indigenous blood but no cultural or social ties to the community will and are abusing the system?claiming ancestry in order to get the monetary benefits while not giving back, contributing or participating in any meaningful way with that community.

Personally, I think drawing from traditional beliefs regarding service to the community might be one way to address these concerns. This could be expressed in the form of requiring individuals who seek tribal or band benefits to give mandatory community service with a cultural learning aspect, to require them to participate at some level with the community in order to create ties that have not been formed because of whatever circumstances and to strengthen ties that have been weakened for whatever reasons. Everyone knows how needy our communities are. Those who can, should give. Those who know how, should share how.

People are threatened by the mixing of nations. I am threatened by it, not because of DNA or genetics, but because of the way group loyalties and individual need for community works. Will our children who can pass for white do so because it is easier? Will they slip along, silently moving away from their Aboriginal communities because:

1.) those communities are punishing & rejecting them for what they look like (something they had no control over) and;

2.) because they find acceptance among whites who look like them?

And will this movement away from their communities mean that another generation is lost? Another generation will not know their language, their culture, their customs, their history, their very identity? Will our rejection of these kids assure our own movement away from traditional and Ancestral attitudes regarding intermarriage and assure our movement closer to prejudicial European attitudes and beliefs regarding ?racial purity??

Regardless of what these kids look like, they carry the blood and the genetic legacy of our Ancestors. They need to be embraced and taught to be full and contributing members of their tribal nations. We need to capture their hearts and minds so that when they grow into adults their loyalties will lie with us, and their beliefs and value systems will be indigenous. And if there is any advantage to them being able to pass as white then they will more likely be to use that advantage to the best interests of their people....contributing in the way they can to all of our health and benefit; it is the traditional tribal way.

Rejecting them because it was whim of the genetic draw that they were born with blue eyes or light skin or blond hair makes no sense when inside every single one of their blood cells and in every single strand of DNA & RNA they carry the SAME genetic code of the SAME Ancestors who?ve lived here on Turtle Island since 40, 000 years ago as the rest of us. They are in our family tree, they ARE our family tree.

Rejecting them is rejecting the blood of our own Ancestors. It is rejecting ourselves.

Miigwetch,

Nehi Katawasisiw
Pipikisis Cree Nation
nehikat@hotmail.com