Wearing a shawl is proof
An investigation challenged her claims.
A Canadian official and academic specialising in Indigenous health issues has been placed on administrative leave from her university after an investigation challenged her claims of Indigenous ancestry.
Carrie Bourassa, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, has described herself as having Métis, Anishinaabe and Tlingit heritage. In 2019 she appeared at a TEDx talk wearing a blue embroidered shawl and holding a feather, where she identified herself as “Morning Star Bear”.
However, an investigation by CBC television alleged that Bourassa was entirely of European descent.
But how would the CBC know better than Bourassa? How does the CBC know she doesn’t identify as of indigenous descent? We know that identifying as is all it takes to determine what one is, so what’s the problem? Why has the University of Saskatchewan placed her on leave?
She recently stepped down from her roles as scientific director for Indigenous peoples health at the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR). Bourassa had been described by the CIHR as “a Métis woman, a highly regarded Indigenous researcher” who “has been a selfless leader and a tireless champion for all Indigenous peoples in this country”.
And saying makes it true, so what is this story even about?
The CBC investigation has drawn comparisons with the case of Rachel Dolezal, an American academic and activist who was accused of passing herself off as black. A Métis professor who worked with Bourassa told CBC she was “the modern-day Grey Owl” – a reference to Archibald Stansfeld Belaney, the British-born conservationist and writer who passed himself off as a Native American in the early 20th century.
How does anyone know Belaney too didn’t identify as a Native American? If people identify as something then they are that thing. That’s the new rule; hasn’t the CBC heard?
CBC reported that people who worked with Bourassa had expressed disquiet about her account of her ancestry, and some examined her genealogical records, which reportedly showed that her ancestors were of Russian, Polish and Czechoslovakian descent.
Yes but that has nothing to do with her identity. Identity is like the soul, and transcends literal items like genealogical records.
In an email to CBC, Bourassa said she had been adopted as Métis by a friend of her grandfather and had subsequently been adopted into other communities. She accused the broadcaster of running a “smear campaign” against her, adding she was “shocked and dismayed at the recent attack on my identity”.
There you go. She knows what her identity is, so who the hell do all these broadcaster and administrators think they are, challenging her?
I was born in California, that makes me a native American too goddamnit. :P
Hi, twiliter, I was also born in California! Seems we both were rather…mobile.
How many generations does your family have to live in a place before you can call yourself a native of that place? Five? Ten? Fifteen? All the generations? It’s a question I’ve been trying to find a good, satisfying answer to for a while now.
Hey CBC! Cool. Now do Morgane Oger.
As we learned in this thread:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2021/10/28/when-you-put-it-that-way-who-wouldnt-want-to-be-pocahantas/
the reasons why this is different are:
1. “Fuck you SO MUCH.”
2. The correct and true answer is “Because trans people are real.”
3 “It’s the differences between living your actual identity, and pretending to be a caricature of an identity that isn’t actually what you are.”
I hope you are convinced now.
Nullius, I can and sometimes do call myself a native Californian, but not an indigenous one, or a native American because that really means something else.
ikn, it’s a nice place to visit but… ;)
I dislike the terms “indigenous” and “native” because they are ill-defined and can be gamed. Plus, originally, deep down, they are not really true. They were originally “immigrants” too at one point in history? The only place humans are “native” or originating from was Africa?
Which is why I find the Canadian term “First Nations” so appealing. THAT is a better description of the reality.
I see your point Brian, and in the strictest sense of the definition I agree, but colloquially if I say I am a native of some place, it isn’t Europe as my ancestors were from there, and it isn’t Africa either though my ancestor’s ancestors were probably from there like everyone else. First Nations is a good descriptor, but I’m no sure how I’d apply it in place of “I’m a native Californian”, which people would understand colloquially as I was born and raised there?