Buffy Sainte-Marie may not be Indigenous

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

What is the point of this? This whole story and investigation seems unnecessary.

It's kind of a big deal if true. Someone putting on toner and gaining celebrityhood by posing as an indigenous person is kind of a big deal. That opportunity should go to an actual indigenous person.

[burn_this_city]

The letter to her brother after he told a PBS exec on a flight she wasn't indigenous was horrifying.

[TheIronMaiden]

There has to be a lot of nuance with respect to Indigenous ancestry, especially since a large population of Indigenous peoples lost their connection to their heritage through the process of colonialism.

That said, it is not uncommon for public figures to try use their ancestry to try and leverage their position in society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody

https://thegeekbuzz.com/news/johnny-...ive-americans/

[Slava]

Originally Posted by you&me

Nowhere in my post did I claim to be an authority... On brand comprehension from calgarygeologist.

I'll acknowledge that I'm definitely not up on "Indigenous" (intentional quotes) "Icons" (again), but if I had to guess, I'd estimate maybe 1 in 20 people could identify BSM from a photo and even fewer would have any more than a passive recollection of her name.

But, in the days where that qualifies someone as an "icon" and Fortze is a unicorn, I guess it all makes sense.

Well she's probably a little before your time (I have no idea how old you are, but she's before my time to some extent for sure). There's no doubt that someone with the accolades she has is an icon though. If you have an Oscar, Order of Canada and a Stamp (among other things), I'd say that makes you an icon whether I know anything about what she did or not!

[The Fonz]

A DNA test would show if you have indigenous heritage, correct?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

A DNA test would show if you have indigenous heritage, correct?

You think she would submit to one? Doubtful. And it would be easy enough for her brother to submit to compare to hers to prove she lied about being adopted. You don't even need to prove indigenous DNA in this case.

[DownInFlames]

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Just let people be who they want to be. We have adopted fluidity in our definitions of who we are as individuals and as a society.

Also, what is the end goal with this type of reporting and investigation by the CBC? Is this revelation supposed to be a net positive or net negative for the First Nations communities? Are they trying to cut down, dare I say "cancel", the achievements of someone who has established themselves as an icon in the First Nations communities and is probably seen as an inspiration?

This.

What a waste of time and effort. And to what end?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

This.

What a waste of time and effort. And to what end?

So you have someone who has been honoured as an indigenous person for decades given award's money etc. She's a fraud. To what end, you ask? Maybe stop rewarding frauds? Does nothing matter anymore?

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You think she would submit to one? Doubtful. And it would be easy enough for her brother to submit to compare to hers to prove she lied about being adopted. You don't even need to prove indigenous DNA in this case.

No I don't think she ever would, which is the point.

When it's so easy to prove a case and someone chooses not to do so...

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

This.

What a waste of time and effort. And to what end?

She profiteered off of a false identity. Do you not think that's worth exposing?

[bdubbs]

As I am not indigenous, I won't comment on the necessity of this investigation, but what seems important is that actual indigenous people are questioning her heritage. This is just CBC asking the questions that need to be asked.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Just let people be who they want to be. We have adopted fluidity in our definitions of who we are as individuals and as a society.

Preach, brother! Rachel Dolezal redemption tour incoming!

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Just let people be who they want to be. We have adopted fluidity in our definitions of who we are as individuals and as a society.

Also, what is the end goal with this type of reporting and investigation by the CBC? Is this revelation supposed to be a net positive or net negative for the First Nations communities? Are they trying to cut down, dare I say "cancel", the achievements of someone who has established themselves as an icon in the First Nations communities and is probably seen as an inspiration?

Sure people can be fluid and choose their own identity but she seems to be a conman and a liar. She has exploited red face for money her whole life and threatened people including her own family for exposing her fraud. What about that American who put on darker makeup and claimed to be black?

People can choose their own identity but stealing someone else's for popularity or financial gain is stupid. It's like buying a costume and medals online and wearing it around claiming you are a war hero which is called stolen valour.

[bluejays]

I hate cancel culture but I hate to say it, this one is all on us. It's one thing for a person to not be making money on a crusade for something they care deeply about, but when their identity is tied up in something that they're making money on, you should question it. Her being in the entertainment industry, which is full of BS and fake stories, should be another reason to be skeptical of whatever the truth is. That's my thought off the top, so I have no problem with CBC exposing any truth as long as it's factful.


What's interesting is how some say cultural identity is whatever you want it to be. That's wild. Does that mean I can claim to be Australian heritage if I put on an accent (or don't)? I get if a person is unknowingly raised as something claiming they are whatever they were falsely raised as but saying you're part of a tribe when you're truly not is just a said cry for attention. There have to be lines drawn somewhere.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Preach, brother! Rachel Dolezal redemption tour incoming!

That was the first name that popped into my head when I saw the thread title, given that I don't know who Buffy Sainte-Marie is.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

there is a response to the Piapot comments in the article.


n an email to The Fifth Estate, some members of the Piapot family said: “Buffy is our family. We chose her and she chose us.”

They said Sainte-Marie’s adoption by Emile and Clara Piapot makes her part of the Piapot First Nation and that community acceptance “holds far more weight than any paper documentation or colonial recordkeeping ever could.”

“Every understanding of our spiritual practices, the history our grandparents shared with us and the traditions of the Cree refute your suggestion that our Auntie Buffy is not Indigenous or a member of our community,” they wrote.

However, Teillet has a different view, saying being adopted “doesn’t make you Indigenous.”

“It simply makes you a member of that family. It’s a very serious and lovely thing that they’re bringing you into their family and that gives you lifelong familial obligations, which are serious. But it doesn’t have anything to do with whether you’re Indigenous or not.”

TallBear said it’s clear the Piapot family have long-standing personal relations with Sainte-Marie, but she agrees with Teillet that relationship doesn’t make her Indigenous.

“I don’t think anyone is probably going to disrespect their decision to continue claiming her as kin,” said TallBear.

However, she said, Sainte-Marie’s ancestry claims went well beyond her adoption by the Piapots.

“That does not contradict or make up for five decades of fabrication of one’s story of origin, one’s childhood, the disavowal of one’s biological family,” said TallBear.


If you didn't read the whole article from CBC
here are the people I quoted

Indigenous scholars like Kim TallBear, a professor of Native studies at the University of Alberta in Edmonton and a member of Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, say it’s unacceptable for non-Indigenous people to speak for Indigenous people and take honours set aside for them.

Sainte-Marie’s story fits an all-too-familiar pattern, said Métis lawyer Jean Teillet of Vancouver.

who in 2022 completed a comprehensive study called Indigenous Identity Fraud for the University of Saskatchewan.

Edit: Nah

[The Fonz]

I don't understand what's racist about that statement.

[Fuzz]

It's also irrelevant. She didn't represent herself as someone adopted as an adult into a community. She's always said she, herself was born indigenous.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

“Being adopted doesn’t make you indigenous” might be some of the most racist horse #### I’ve ever heard.

By that logic, trans women aren’t women, and naturalized Citizens aren’t Canadian.

Which, I’m aware, some people believe, but that’s how you tell they’re #######s.

This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and really it depends on the context in which you're asking the question "are you [thing]". If anything, it seems to be a relevant difference, otherwise you're reducing being Indigenous down to a purely subjective feeling.

If I was adopted by an Indigenous family, I'm not Indigenous and there is nothing racist about my or anyone else saying so. I may pick up a lot of cultural influence in my upbringing being part of their family, so culturally I might have a lot more kinship with other Indigenous people thanks to sharing their customs and so on. But whether or not you can get your Indian Status card as other Indigenous can is a whole different thing and varies by jurisdiction. Legally, you might or might not be entitled to, whereas someone who is actually Indigenous doesn't have this problem.

Naturalized citizens are Canadians, legally. But if you ask someone who is a naturalized citizen if they're Canadian, you're likely to get some permutation of "yeah, I have my citizenship, but I'm originally from [country]". My mom's Canadian, but she's gonna mention she's originally from Pakistan if you ask. I'm Canadian, and I can just answer "yeah", because I was born here.

If trans women were women under every definition that people operate under, you wouldn't need to use the qualifier 'trans' before 'women'. But you do for a plethora of reasons: medical care is different. No one cares you're a 'real woman', you still need to get your prostate checked. Dating is another one where the qualifier before the gender makes a big difference.