Real Indians & Fake Wizards

Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America

by Eva Marie Garroutte

Quotes from the text to be analyzed:

"Most people would recognize the full-blood Indian who was enrolled in a federally recognized tribe as an Indian, even if the individual was adopted at birth by a non-Indian family and had never set foot in Indian country nor met another indian. Mixed-race individuals, by contrast, find their identity claims considerably complicated. Even if such an individual can demonstrate conclusively that he has some Native ancestry, the question will still be raised: Is the amount of ancestry he possesses "enough"?" (Garroutte, 68)

"Few, if any, Native Americans, regardless of upbringing in rural, reservation, or urban setting, ignore their own and other Indians' blood quantum in everyday life. Those whose physical appearances render their Indian identities suspect are subject to suspicious scrutiny until precise cultural explanations, especially blood quantum, are offered or discovered" (Garroutte, 72)

In this reading, the author is describing the difficulties of establishing one's identity as a Native American. Put simply, the most salient aspect of a person's identity according to governmental procedures and documents is that of blood quantum. The article delves into the fact that each individual that claims their identity as "Native American" needs to have a "sufficient" amount of Native American ancestral blood. Some laws require between a one-fourth and a one-half blood quantum to be considered a Native American. It has been stated however, that the only true Native Americans are those that are the pure-bloods. This article also touched upon the one-drop rule, (used since the end of the civil war to determine if an individual is considered African-American or not based on their hypodescent), and compared it to the intricacies faced when attempting to establish Indian identity. The article perfectly describes the juxtaposition of these two identity crises. In the former, African Americans are forced into a certain category even with the smallest amount of blood quantum, whereas in the latter, the individuals who desire a Native American identity need to justify why their amount of blood quantum should suffice. 

The article takes a turn away from the biological contentions, and toward the cultural and social contexts in which this identity crisis occurs. According to the text, many Indians find themselves being labeled and ostracized solely based on their skin color. There is a generalized view of what a Native American "should" look like, and if a person does not meet those standards exactly, they are cast away as an outlier, shunned away from the society that they want to be a part of and the larger nation that refuses to accept them as they wish to be. The text even states that many Native Americans are aware of their actions, and their potential deleterious effects, yet there seems to be no stopping the behavior, because it has been established as the norm.

Upon reading this article, I experienced a myriad of emotions ranging from anger, disgust, confusion, and ultimately pragmatic realization. When first learning about the laborious task of claiming one's identity as "Native American" I became appalled. Just as my trepidation was expressed in my last post, it seems to continue into this one due to a recurring theme of dehumanization. I truly cannot fathom why it is so difficult to allow a person to claim their own identity based on their upbringing and belief system. Once again, the "dominant" members of society have established such intense rules that it is physically impossible for a person to claim their own identity. It is absolutely atrocious that the process has become easier to actually just be forced into some arbitrary category, and whether or not you'd actually be accepting of it, is besides the point. 

The first aforementioned quote stated at the beginning of this post truly disgusts me based on the fact that it takes away all human rights, and places people into categories analogous to labeling and breeding of animals. The latter part of that quote truly shows how apathetic humans can become, based on the fact that even if a person desires to be part of something, and has fully immersed themselves in that specific culture, we would actually deny them that desire based on preposterous criteria. As interesting as this may sound, this quote truly brought me back to the fantasy world of Harry Potter created by J.K. Rowling. I found this quote to be analogous with the debacle that "mud-bloods" faced when trying to fit into the world. When trying to fit into the "human" world, they don't belong, as they are passionate about being part of the wonderful world of magic and wizardry, however, when fully immersed in their dream culture among other wizards, they are moderately shunned for not being true wizards. The character Hermione is a wonderful example of this paradox, and in my opinion, bolsters the argument that the quote above is terrible. She is very passionate, and not even having been an offspring of wizards, finds herself incredibly intrigued and skilled with the magical arts, so much so that she becomes one of the top students in her class. Drawing the bridge between fantasy and reality now, it is terribly irresponsible and truly detrimental to refuse somebody the ability to identify and be a part of something that they truly feel they belong to. Hermione's example also can play into the second quote above as she is constantly called a "filthy mud-blood" by other wizards. It is truly appalling to see that as members of society we don't always accept others into our culture solely based on minor differences. It shouldn't matter if a person doesn't necessarily look exactly the part, because if they are passionate about something enough, they may be more fit for the particular identity than a person who could have been born into it and takes it for granted. 

Another quick real-life example related to this can be drawn from a time when my family actually went to temple. Being from a half-jewish//half-catholic family, there were times when I truly didn't know what religion was and as a result really wasn't too passionate about it. I didn't know much about rules, but instead family traditions. I didn't know how to speak Hebrew, but I had a general understanding of what the blessings meant. Anyway, I digress, and want to say that I find it fascinating that in terms of religion, we are so accepting of those who could potentially want to be passionate about it, however we are so quick as a society to jump down one's throat concerning identity. Who cares if a person wants to identify as something that they feel is truly them?! How dare we take that away from them...All we are doing is showing people how to exclude and this deleterious circle will perpetually continue until somebody wakes up...

Anyway, there is another part of the article that I found particularly interesting, as it directly addresses the question that I had posed during class two days ago...In regards to me stating that we should just stop categorizing people all together, I guess I have come to the pragmatic realization that there obviously is a justifiable reason for it as well. When explaining why somebody made a decision based on another's skin color, there is a part of the text that states, "We like people to know who's doing those accomplishments, like getting scholarships" (Garroutte, 71). After reading that, I have to say Dr. McGough, that I guess I am beginning to understand. Identity categorization may potentially cause stigmas, yet at the same time, it gives people something to look for, to honor, and to be appreciative for. This is but a tiny example of how there is much more for me to learn in terms of diversity studies, and I am certainly growing more and more eager to do so!

Thanks for reading...