Thread by @gindaanis

Only settler colonialism can dismiss oral history in one moment and then cry passionately about their oral history when confronted by Cherokee receipts. And heck, do the Cherokee have receipts. @justicedanielh brings them.

soundcloud.com/patty-wbk/eliz…

In 1885 Senator Henry Dawes noticed how well the Cherokee communities were doing, without the selfishness that he felt laid behind the basis of any good civilization. This resulted in the allotment process.

treatiesmatter.org/relationships/…

The allotment process had a significant impact on Indigenous identity in a couple of ways. Because those who were fully Indigenous were considered to be child-like and unable to manage their own affairs, their allotments went into reservations. Lands reserved and held in trust

This is where notions about half and full blood start to have some real political implications, and the designations were often arbitrary and based solely on how somebody looked to the gov't official doing the work. @KimTallBear has talked about this on @mediaINDIGENA

The Canadian reserve system is similar in that the lands do not actually belong to the tribe or nation holding them. They are owned by the Canadian govt and held in trust for that particular community.

The modern treaty process in Canada restores some of the rights over that land, but at a price, and devolving much of the federal responsibility to the provinces.

Those whose parents had intermarried were considered closer to being civilized and if you were half or more, you were given land. Naturally, many people who weren't native at all saw opportunity in this and started cooking up relatives.

Creating relatives from the so called Five Civilized nations were more attractive, so to speak, because you could claim being Cherokee, or Choctaw without also being savage. These tribes were considered civilized because they had adopted many of the settler colonial ways.

And this all happened within the late 1800's up to the 1950's. Yes, you read that correctly, challenges for land continued up into the 50's. And the late 1800's aren't that far away really. Your grandparents remember their parents and their grandparents, don't they?

So great grandpa cooks up a Cherokee relative. Maybe he married a woman who had previously married a Cherokee (actual story). On this basis he decides he is entitled to some land and claims relationship.

Your grandma is a child and hears these stories, but she's a child and understands things the way a child does so she comes to believe something that is based on avarice. But she adores her dad right? Because he's big and strong and does everything good.

And that's how she comes to believe that she is part Cherokee. And she tells you. And you believe her because you adore your grandma.

Except the Cherokee have receipts, oh boy do they have receipts. And so does the government because they didn't want to give away any more land than absolutely necessary. They had other land, further west, that they wanted handed out. Not this contested over land.

A number of people have done a lot of research on this. @pollysgdaughter @rebeccanagle .. aack, @justicedanielh please add more names because my brain just froze.

There is a significant parallel with the rise of the Eastern fetis in Canada and the northeastern US. People relying on an ancestor from the 16-1700's and claiming Metis based on that. We previously talked with @DarrylLeroux about that.

soundcloud.com/patty-wbk/darr…

I understand that you want to believe your grandma's story. And Elizabeth Warren wants to believe hers. But part of respecting Indigenous sovereignty is respecting our knowledge and realizing that your grandma may have misunderstood a thing or two.

You can still be a good ally, be a good relative. You can be plantain instead of purple loosestrife.

https://twitter.com/gindaanis/status/1089157120778366977