Thursday, May 03, 2012

Is "Queen Chief Warhorse" Native? And who gets to decide?

Yesterday (May 2nd, 2012), Latoya Paterson of Racialicious published my post about "Queen Chief Warhorse" at her site. In it I questioned the use of "Queen." Latoya also posted an essay by Gyasi Ross, and one of her own. The three generated many comments. Some people question the import of federal recognition. Some people see the discussion as racist. This is my response to that conversation.

In Part One (below), I return to the remarks made by "Queen Chief Warhorse" that night in New Orleans. Here's the video, and beneath it are her remarks, followed by my thoughts (then and now) about what she said. In Part Two, I address some of the Latoya's questions.

PART ONE





Warhorse: 
"All glory go to the Creator. It's an honor to be here today, but I love the theme: America Healing. But first, let's think about something. Where did America come from? Have it always been America? Or was it just created to be America? Who are the real Americans? America keep changing and changing and changing."

Debbie's response: 
With her "let's think about something," she asked the audience to hit the pause button and be critical thinkers. That's a good thing for any speaker to do.

I invite you (and her) to think critically about her question "Who are the real Americans?" It is factually incorrect for her to call the Indigenous peoples of this land Americans. When Europeans arrived here, they entered into diplomatic negotiations with leaders of Indigenous nations. The outcome of those negotiations were treaties, just like the treaties the US makes today with nations around the world. They didn't make treaties with "First Americans." They made treaties with hundreds of Indigenous nations. None of them were called "America" and their citizens didn't call themselves "Americans." (If you're interested in treaties, you can read some of them online, but I urge you to get the two-volume set, Documents of American Indian Diplomacy, edited by Vine Deloria, Jr. and Raymond J. DeMallie. It is more comprehensive and it provides context for reading the treaties.)

We were, and are, sovereign nations. Categorizing us beneath the multicultural umbrella obscures our status as sovereign nations and leads people to think that we want to be Americans, just like everybody else. In some ways we do, and some ways we don't. For the most part, that multicultural umbrella is about people of color. We (Indigenous peoples) might be people of color, but we are first-and-foremost, citizens of sovereign nations. Some of us look the way people think Indians should look, but some of us don't. Some of us look like we ought to be called "African American" instead, and some of us look White. What we look like doesn't matter.

Some might think that the "we are not people of color" statement is racist, I hope you see it isn't about race. It is about sovereignty.

Any nation---the U.S., or Canada, or Spain---has the power to decide who its citizens are and what criteria they will use to made such determinations. We might not like the criteria, and we can work to change that criteria, but until it is changed, it is pretty much what we abide by. Indigenous nations in the United States also have that power. Most people in the United States don't know that, because most people in the United States think we vanished, that we came to the end of the trail. We're still here, however, and when we see errors, some of us point them out. If you were in France and someone said something incorrect about the United States, you might speak up and correct that error.

By the way, "Queen Chief Warhorse" isn't the only person to make that error. President Obama made it, too, in his children's book wherein he writes about "thirteen groundbreaking Americans." Among those thirteen is Sitting Bull. One of Sitting Bull's grandson's said emphatically that Sitting Bull did not consider himself "American."  That error is made a lot because people don't know enough about who we were, and who we are. Given Racialicious's audience, I'm glad to see the conversation because having it creates the opportunity for knowledge to be gained, and spread.

Warhorse:
"Let's go back in time when the American Indians look like I look..."

Debbie's response:
Does she really think that all Indigenous peoples were phenotypically Black? Or did she misspeak?

Later on (her remarks went far longer than the minute-long video), she said that reservations are "prison camps" and like the "projects". There is a kernel of truth in that statement. There was a time when one had to have permission from a federal agent to leave the reservation, but that isn't the case today. Does her audience know that? Does she? There is poverty and substandard housing on reservations but for some of us, they are far more than that. We (at Nambe) are on a reservation, but we were never moved. We are on the land we've been on for hundreds of years. (Through carbon dating, our current village is dated to 1300, and ones we were in before are far older than that.) Our traditions are strong. 

Warhorse:
"...and roamed the southeast part of the United States, freely."

Debbie's response:
Her use of "roam" is another indicator (to me) that she is steeped in stereotypes of American Indians.

Think critically about that word, who uses it, and when it is used. Basically, what she is describing is the movement of a people. That movement may be due to seasonal changes, or to follow herds, or, to go where water or resources are more plentiful at a given time of the year. That movement is different than what the word "roam" means. You can look it up if you wish. It means to move about without purpose or plan, or to wander over or through. See why it doesn't work when applied to the movement of a people?

In 2009, I did some research on the use of the word roam. It is often used to describe the movement of Indigenous peoples. Here's what I found:

On the web---

  • Search phrase: "Pioneers roamed": 129 hits
  • Search phrase: "Cowboys roamed": 938 hits
  • Search phrase: "Indians roamed": 9,910 hits

I repeated the search in Google books---
  • Pioneers roamed: 23 hits
  • Cowboys roamed: 135
  • Indians roamed: 688 hits
Obviously, pioneers and cowboys were doing the same thing Indians were doing (moving from one place to another) but I think the discrepancy in use of the word is worth noting. The Indigenous peoples in the southeast part of the United States weren't roaming. Using that word takes away from their intellect, their agency, and their humanity. It lets us think of them as "primitive" or animal-like.

Warhorse:
"I love what the Mayor said...  We have to tell the truth. We cannot heal America till we fix the foundation. Can we start right there?"

Debbie's response:
I agree. We do have to tell the truth and fix the foundation, but given her lack of substantive knowledge about Indigenous peoples, we can't start with her.

PART TWO

Latoya poses the question: Who gets to say if "Queen Chief Warhorse" is Native? She, like anyone in the world, can say anything they want to. My guess is that she (like Elizabeth Warren) learned about a Native ancestor from stories handed down from family members. And with that story, she built a way of "being" Indian that is based on stereotypes. That's too bad. It undermines the work she is trying to do to get recognition.

"Queen Chief Warhorse" has organized a group of people who share that story. They're trying to get recognized but they've got a long way to go. As Gyasi pointed out, it is a difficult process, but an important one. Among other things, it protects all of you (Americans) from being ripped off by someone who claims they're a tribe and then charges you for performances or products that aren't, in fact, accurate or authentic.

Do you know about the Indian Arts and Crafts Act? It is a federal law that says that items marketed as being American Indian must be supported by documentation that the maker is a citizen of a federally recognized tribe. There's a lot of push-back on that law, because a lot of people who are Native can't get enrolled due to the way that a tribe's criteria is laid out. It isn't fair, as many point out, but changes can be made to those criterion, and many tribes are making those changes, and many have other ways of recognizing individuals who don't fit the criteria for enrollment.

The thing is, there's a lot of hucksters out there, claiming American Indian identity. 

Do you remember when that Sacajawea coin came out? There was a group in the midwest who said they were a tribe, and, they marketed a small bag in which you could store your coin. When they were called out as fake, they had to return the money to people who bought those bags (I didn't bookmark the page. I'll look for it, but in the meantime, if anyone finds it, please let me know).

And do you remember that group that said it was a tribe, and was selling "citizenship" to people in other countries (particularly Mexico)? Those individuals bought that citizenship and came to the U.S., only to find out they'd been the victims of a fraud.

Latoya points to the idea of sovereignty, and how a group decides. "Queen Chief Warhorse" has a group, and, she's Queen and Chief of that group. Apparently, they think that's fine. Therein is the key. Who is "the group" and what are they doing to become recognized? If Latoya has Native ancestry in her family line and she starts researching it, I don't think she would create a tribe and start wearing a headdress at various functions. I don't think "Queen Chief Warhorse" is like the two fraudulent tribes I noted above, but I do think her speech and adoption of stereotypes is undermining her claim and chance of recognition. "Queen Chief Warhorse" says she is Chahta, which is Choctaw. Does she have any contact with the Choctaw Nation in Mississippi? Or the one in Oklahoma ? If she and her group want to learn what Chahta's culture was/is, they could go to either one of those nations and learn from them. Have they done that? If you're trying to recover something you lost, where do you start looking?

Latoya also says that the conversation leaves us "not much further than before" but I think she's wrong about that. She knows a lot more, as do her readers. Prior to this, I think the conversations at her site (regarding identity) were grounded in pop culture, and Gyasi and I are trying to ground them in the politics of Indigenous nations.

If you want to learn more, the Cherokee Nation has an excellent video:



As David Cornsilk (citizen of the Cherokee Nation) said to me, Mayor Landreau's recommendation of her as a speaker isn't without context, too. If she's successful in convincing people of her group's status as a Native nation, the city stands to gain money from those who would give her group funding, based on its claim as a Native nation.

If you read Gyasi's piece and you've read this far on mine, I hope you feel that you know a lot more now than you did before. Carry that information with you, and share it with others. And the next time you could across someone who says she's the queen of an Indian tribe, I think you'll hear that claim in a different way than you did before.  

Part of why you accepted the idea of an Indian "Queen" is due in large part to what you learned in school. Most children's books you read were full of errors. The stories might have been page-turners or award-winning, and they might have felt accurate, but they weren't. American Indians in Children's Literature, in publication since 2005, has been providing readers with critical analysis of those books, and, tools to help you spot the problems yourself. If you're reading this essay at another site, please visit American Indians in Children's Literature, and let parents and teachers know about the site, too. In the top right are lists of books that accurately represent American Indians. For your convenience, they are grouped by grade level.


Update: Sunday, May 6, 2012, 4:38 PM

Over the last couple of days, I've watched several videos in which "Queen Chief Warhorse" talks about her group. To view them, search Youtube and Google videos using "Chief Warhorse" as your search term. In watching them, I found some answers to questions I posed above:


When she said "Let's go back in time when the American Indians look like I look" she means it. By watching the videos, I understand that she means it just as she said it. She believes that this continent was first populated by Africans who came here on entrepreneur ships. The people of federally recognized sovereign Native nations today, she says, are descendents of her people who came here from Africa and mixed with people who weren't from Africa. The real Indigenous people, she says, look like her. To use her words, real Indigenous people would look "cocoa brown" like her and not "vanilla." We (federally recognized sovereign nations), she says, are not legitimate and the federal government is being ripped off by us.

She says she is from a long line of royal chiefs. Hence, she believes it is correct for her to use "Queen" as her title. 

Above, I wondered if she has made efforts to visit the Mississippi Choctaw or Oklahoma Choctaw Nations to reestablish connections with them. By watching the videos, I understand that she doesn't feel the need to do so. She says that the Oklahoma Choctaws use of "Choctaw" is incorrect. She says that the people who moved to Oklahoma started using "Choctaw" and then went down to Louisiana to observe her people and how they did things. Then, they went back to Oklahoma and mimicked the ways of her people.

My thoughts on that? I find it interesting and when I have time, will look into it. In some ways she seems to be determined to discredit and even usurp the federally recognized tribes, putting her people in place as the "First Americans" who have rightful claim to this continent. On one hand she seems to dismiss us, and on the other, she adopts stereotypical Plains Indian ways of being, but it is possible she addresses that in one of the videos and I didn't see it. (Several people have written to me privately about horses, and how they weren't in the swampland.)

Why do I bother, some of you might wonder, with any of this?!

Here's why... In the 1950s, the federal government instituted the "Termination" program through which it hoped to be rid of federally recognized tribes. In American Indian Politics and the American Political System, David Wilkins writes that over 100 tribes were, in fact, terminated. Carrying out the policy proved disastrous and it ended in the 1960s. Some tribes have been successful in having their sovereign status restored. In comments at Racialicious, someone pointed to a news article that reports that U.S. Department of Interior officials met with her in Louisiana, and that it is the first time the government has met with a group that doesn't have federal recognition. I also found an article about her success in getting a three-digit code from the U.S. Census by which to count the members of her group. It seems she is making in-roads with the federal government, but to what end, and what does the federal government stand to gain by meeting with her? 

Update, Monday, May 7, 6:13 PM

Indian Country Today ran a story today about Elizabeth Warren. Here's an excerpt:

“The mainstream media definitely has added to this controversy due to their well-known ignorance about tribal citizenship and other tribal issues,” says Julia Good Fox, a professor at Haskell Indian Nations University. Good Fox notes that the media has largely failed to explain tribal citizenry and blood quantum issues to give context to the situation because these aren’t easy stories to tell. It’s easier to label the case “convoluted,” blame Warren, and move on to the next political gotcha story.


“Unfortunately, for the most part, their coverage is just adding to the confusion and threatens to feed racism or anti-Indianism,” Good Fox says. To do better, she says the media should start by noting that tribal nations have a right to determine who their citizens are, rather than focusing on the misunderstood notion that tribal citizens can only be determined by U.S.-imposed mathematical fractions.

12 comments:

Ms. Azizi Powell said...

Full disclosure: I'm an African American (non-Native) who regularly reads the Racialicious blog. I also commented there on your post& Latoya's post about Queen Chief Warhorse. Here is a portion of the comment I wrote to your post there:
"Whether or not Queen Chief Warhorse and other members of the Lousiana Chahta tribe, Tchufuncta nation are descendants of 19th century Choctaw (Chahta) peoples, it seems clear to me that that is what they are asserting. And if they are indeed descendants of Choctaw peoples, the years apart from other Choctaw peoples would certainly explain the differences in their customs from the federally recognized Choctaw people, and would also explain that group's adoption of "pan Indian" customs and African/ European titles such as "Queen" and "Ambassador". Also, that Louisiana Chahta group may have been influenced to use the titles of "Queen" because other Black populations such as the New Orleans Mardi Gras Indians, the Yoruba village in South Carolina, and the Gullah Geechee nation also in South Carolina use such royalty titles. Nevertheless, I believe that those titles, and the adopted? last name "Warhorse" feed into arguments that the Chahta tribe, Tchufuncta nation are a made up group of people, as does what appears to be that leaders' use of stereotypical Indian attire and presentation. I think that's unfortunate, and wish that she would learn more about Choctaw [Chahta] traditions. But that lack of knowledge doesn't mean that Queen Chief Warhorse and her followers don't have any Choctaw [Chahta] descendants. If they do, in my opinion, they have the right to indicate that they are Choctaws, th0ugh other Choctaws may not accept them as such."

-snip-

Furthermore, Debbie, you wrote in the above post that
"Latoya also says that the conversation leaves us "not much further than before" but I think she's wrong about that. She knows a lot more, as do her readers. Prior to this, I think the conversations at her site (regarding identity) were grounded in pop culture, and Gyasi and I are trying to ground them in the politics of Indigenous nations."

[I added italics to highlight this sentence.]

-snip-

As a person who favored your blog previous to these posts (perhaps because of a post or comment you wrote on Racialicious), and as a person who usually has much respect for your positions and this blog's content, I feel the need to let you know that I consider your assessment of Racialicious to be both condescending and inaccurate.

Jean Mendoza said...

Thanks for the links to this important conversation, Debbie. You, Racialicious, Gyasi Ross, and several of the commenters are approaching the topic with the care, respect, and thoughtfulness it requires. I've got nothing to add, but appreciate the work that's going on here. Oh, and thanks for including your statistics on "roaming" -- an instance of what seems like trivia actually being significant. (Is there a joke about "roaming charges" waiting to be made?)

Anonymous said...

Debbie, I am a longtime reader of your blog.

A Nation may have a right to define who is and is not a citizen of that Nation. That doesn't mean that those policies can't be racist and shouldn't be criticized as such.

I can see that Nambe Pueblo can define who can and can't enroll. I can't see clearly what the requirements are for accepting another group of people as a Nation, outside of recognition by the US Government (maybe). You seem to be saying that Queen Chief Warhorse needs to act like a "real" Choctaw if she wants to be accepted as a Native American by other Nations. That whatever she thinks and however she acts-- if it doesn't agree with your own opinions (OMG, she used the word Roam!), it means her identity isn't valid.

Am I reading that correctly?

Anonymous said...

Colonization, genocide, blood quantum, rolls & relocation, allotment, etc. all represent the divide and conquer strategies employed by the U.S. government. Let us not perpetuate that insanity. Chief Warhorse has the right to share her story. We all benefit by listening with our hearts to the stories of others. We are all connected; in the past, now, and forever more. Although I've never met Chief Warhorse, I do know of at least a couple of extremely credible people around her. They are kind, humble, courageous, and keenly aware of how they are misunderstood and/or unwelcomed by some others. I imagine that creates a soul wound that will never heal. There is a difference between questioning things out of the desire to know more, and attacking or marginalizing a person, a community, or their beliefs. That is what the U.S. government did to get us into this type of conversation in the first place, and those forces are still at work. The U.S. government decided for us all who the REAL Indians are and did it with the goal of eliminating us. We're still here. Why would anyone want to participate in the colonizers' evil? --With TEARS

Sarah said...

I really appreciate Debbie Reese's clear and encouraging style of educating.

I understand some folks may hear her blog post as somehow attacking - but I think that has more to do with where we the listeners are coming from than her actual words.

Public figures should be able to withstand public scrutiny, even welcome it, if they are legit.

Con artists, destructive group leaders, and hucksters do exist. More crop up every day. Research isn't an attack, it isn't malicious - it is a way for us to become educated and strengthen our b.s. detectors.

Anonymous said...

IndiVisible: African-Native American Lives in the Americas:

Smithsonian Videos:
http://is.gd/9xDg2Y

National Museum of the American Indian Symposium - 11/13/09

From Symposium Description:

A part of the American story has long been invisible—the story of people who share African American and Native American ancestry. Over centuries, African American and Native people came together, creating shared histories, communities, and ways of life. Often divided by prejudice, laws, or twists of history, African-Native Americans were united by a double heritage that is truly indivisible.

Anonymous said...

There is a great deal of misinformation in Ms. Gillum's videos. She wrongly claims that white people with one drop of Native blood are considered Native, and Native people with one drop of African blood are considered Black. I don't know why she thinks this, but it's not true. She either doesn't know the basics of how sovereign tribes determine their enrollment criteria, or if she does know she is misleading people for some reason.

Among many, many other problematic things, Ms. Gillum's group supports the Bering Strait theory - which has been used to try and deny tribes their sovereignty, their rights to their landbases and their basic identity as tribal peoples.

This video includes their take on the history of African, "Chinese" and Native people on this continent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTXpGn5bTlw&feature=relmfu

At about 0:45 in this video, the man sitting next to Ms. Gillum, who the moderator addresses as "Brother Roger" gives his take on Indigenous American history, which Ms. Gillum agrees with as he speaks.

I think he's saying they believe the Olmec people were actually West Africans who came to South America on ships, "thousands of years ago."

Brother Roger: "The Olmecs mixed with some of the Chinese invaders that were coming in through the Bering Strait. And we mixed together and we made what
is called the so-called Native American now which is the Red Man..."

Ms. Gillum: "That's right."

Roger: "...that's going around perpetrating on our property. ... We gave them parts of the land to civilize, I mean, not civilize but..."

Moderator: "Inhabit."

Roger: "...inhabit. And we mixed in with those people."
------------------------

So actual Indigenous people are "perpetrating" on land in the Americas that the West Africans gave them. I don't think I even need to go into how problematic, bizarre and incorrect this is. I think Ms. Gillum's group has an agenda that is not compatible with Native sovereignty.

Sarah said...

Thinking over the Sunday update -

If I put myself (white, European descent)in Ms. Gillum's shoes with what she has said in interviews:

Something like this - "My people came over on entrepreneur ships, we eventually mingled with others who were not from my homeland, the real indigenous peoples look like me - white.

I am from a long royal line. I am gathering my people together once again. This land, including this region of Louisiana is ours. Usurpers have mimicked us, stolen our ways, returned to Oklahoma, and are ripping off the federal government. We are legit, they are not."

If I did this, I'd be making Nation status about race, which it isn't. I'd be claiming that the color of my skin is proof of our legit status as first people.

If I claimed that federally recognized tribes were all frauds and ripping off the feds - it would be obvious that I'd be delusional. And/or up to something. I'd be anti-sovereignty. Denying history. Bashing quite a few people and nations. I'd be lying.

Why would I do that? Maybe to make my group seem very special, I could draw people to me and keep them close because I could tell them who the "other" is, who the enemy is.

Why would I want a census #, why would I seek grants & the attentions of the federal government - all while claiming that federally recognized tribes are frauds? For recognition, tight group cohesion, and money.

Why would any federal agency have anything to do with me? Shouldn't they catch on to what I'm doing pretty quick?

But why should any of this matter? Because truth matters. In this scenario I'd be running a scam. A con game dangerous to not only the people I gather round me, but potentially to the integrity of nation to nation relations. If I as a con artist can convince the federal government that I am legit and all others are frauds - what happens?

And why would any federal agency fall for this? Would my fraud dovetail with what so many people already believe?

Anonymous said...

It's sad how uninformed most people are about the history of Indigenous people. Queen Chief Warhorse? I mean, come on! Ridiculous.

Kat said...

@ Debbie: I already said on racialicious how absolutely ridiculous Ms Elwin Gillum is, but I was wondering what your views/reactions are to the 'twist' regarding Elizabeth Warren and her ancestry. I'm confused now. It seems as if Warren has no Cherokee ancestry now whatsoever, but instead an ancestor who as militia member rounded up Cherokees for deportation.

@ Azizi Powell: I find your entire post condescending, actually. Latoya is not Native, so if a Nambe Pueblo and a Blackfeet try to educate Latoya on indigenous politics, that is as little condescending as it would be if you were to educate Debbie on Black issues. (Hint: Not at all)

Debbie Reese said...

Kat,

I wish Warren would use her status to say this:

"I was raised to believe that I was part Cherokee, and based on that belief, I claimed Cherokee at various times in order to meet people like me. I know, now, that:

1) there is a Cherokee Nation that has policies in place that determine who its citizens are, and I am not a citizen of the Cherokee Nation.

2) there are people who believe they have Cherokee ancestors, and that there are ways of verifying that ancestry with the Cherokee Nation. I have not done that.

3) the pride in my claim of Cherokee ancestry and my understanding of that ancestry is, sadly, based on an educational system that fails to teach Americans that in addition to state and federal governments, there are tribal governments that are recognized by the federal government as sovereign nations with the inherent power of any nation to determine who its citizens are.

4) I am therefore, going to make this information one of my talking points. It is an opportunity to educate a lot of people."

It would be outstanding if she did that, but given the way politics works, I doubt she would do it.

Sarah said...

Ms. Gillum's description of herself & heritage changes over time, current one is:

"Queen Chief Elwin Warhorse Gillum is the Queen of Tchefuncta Nation and the Chief of the Chahta Tribe. As appointed by the 365 Elders (Blood Members) of the Tribe, she was appointed the Chief of the Tribe in 1998 and Queen Chief Elwin Warhorse Gillum took the throne of the Nation in 2009, when she brought the Nation out of exile."

http://new.dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/1271

Video on this page is of Ms. Gillum describing her work as a weight loss coach (at about 10:40 she claims that her herb program changed a woman's vision prescription).

I wonder why neither Lousiana state gov or USDA seem to be doing any type of fact checking or vetting. Just because Ms. Gillum says over and over again that she is leader of a tribe doesn't mean this is true. Why does she claim to be chief of a tribe rather than a leader of a heritage association? As leader of a heritage assocation she and other members could continue to do community revival and agricultural projects.