As Canada marks the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, we are called not only to remember the colonial policies that sought to eradicate Onkwehón:we (Indigenous) cultures and identities, but also to recognize, affirm and celebrate Onkwehón:we peoples and their perseverance.
With this important day of acknowledgement and remembrance, a question merits consideration: What might be meant by Onkwehón:we identity?
As universities across Canada develop policies to address erroneous claims of Onkwehón:we identity, and as recent cases of, misrepresentation of Onkwehón:we identity are scruntinized, this question reverberates in challenging ways.
Knowledge, heritage, consciousness
Identity may be best regarded as that which makes a person or thing remain the same over time. For philosopher John Locke, personal identity rests primarily on continuity of consciousness, rather than simply having the same body or soul. We remain the same person insofar as our present consciousness connects us with our past experiences.
Reflecting on Onkwehón:we identity, education scholar Marie Battiste and lawyer and educator James (Sa'ke'j) Youngblood Henderson focus on the unique manifestations of Onkwehón:we knowledge, heritage and consciousness. These aspects of Onkwehón:we identity are passed down through intergenerational transmission.
Ancestry matters within this understanding of Onkwehón:we identity, but it’s important to acknowledge that ancestry is not simply a genetic claim.
Citizenship, kinship
However, an emerging reliance on citizenship or membership as the principal means of verification presents another problem.
Citizenship may be an important aspect for some, but it should not be understood as a central aspect in the verification one’s Onkwehón:we identity.
Kim TallBear, whose research examines Onkwehón:we Peoples and discourses around identity, science and race, has argued that Onkwehón:we understandings of identity emphasize both biological and cultural kinship that are embedded in longstanding relationships.
Similarly, Chris Andersen, who has researched Métis nationhood and peoplehood and Onkwehón:we data sovereignty, has argued that genealogy cannot establish Indigeneity by itself without ongoing Onkwehón:we relationality and kinship.
Read more: Mawachihitotaak: For Métis, it matters to say ‘let’s get together’ to share stories
Onkwehón:we identity, then, might be understood as the intersection of direct ancestral connections and continuing cultural and relational belonging through which Onkwehón:we knowledge, heritage and consciousness may be understood and celebrated.
The intersection of ancestral connections and continuing cultural and relational belonging can occur in community — whether that be a First Nation or other place in which Onkwehón:we people reside or assemble. Although not fundamental to this intersection, the role of citizenship in such a community can be an important way of fostering belonging.
But citizenship (a term that relates to political relationships within a community or nation as well as within other polity) and identity are not the same thing. As sociologist Christian Joppke puts it, citizenship is “ineradicably political.”
Citizenship and identity: Not synonymous
Citizenship is, fundamentally, a political relationship between an individual and a nation or state. But identity is much broader than this.
Identity can encompass ancestry, kinship, community relationships, cultural knowledge, language, historical experience and a person’s conscious view of themselves as Onkwehón:we. These dimensions cannot be reduced to, or reflected in, such things like entry in a membership or citizenship registry.
I am Kanien’kehá:ka and a Status Indian through the Mohawk band of Kahnawà:ke. One might posit that my Indian status constitutes citizenship in my community.
Under many institutional verification policies, I could produce my federal status card and probably be verified without difficulty. Yet the status card is a colonial instrument created under the authority of the Indian Act.
Its acceptance would not provide an institution with much information about my Kanien’kehá:ka knowledge, relationships, experiences or sense of responsibility to other Onkwehón:we people. Although it might establish something administratively convenient, membership or citizenship would not, by itself, explain anything about my Onkwehón:we identity.
Colonial imposition
Requirements for documentation such as citizenship and status cards can disadvantage people whose relationships with their respective nations have been disrupted.
The Indian Act historically excluded many from legal status, including women who married non-status men as well as their descendants. Residential schools, the 60s Scoop, child welfare systems and forced relocation separated Onkwehón:we people from their families, languages and communities.
Indian status is part of this still-active colonial project.
Some people are now undertaking profoundly personal identity journeys because governments and institutions interrupted the transmission of their identities in the first place. Others may have clear Onkwehón:we ancestry and meaningful cultural relationships but lack access to formal citizenship documents.
Policies that essentialize citizenship and membership as principal criteria can reproduce these colonial exclusions.
An institution may claim that it is simply respecting Onkwehón:we self-determination while relying on categories and documentation that have themselves been shaped through colonial imposition.
What should universities be trying to protect?
Amid recent cases of misrepresentation of Onkwehón:we identity, there has been concern for how opportunities intended for Onkwehón:we — including professional roles, grants or seats in academic programs, sometimes referred to as material benefits — are being taken up by those who are not Onkwehón:we.
But is there something more fundamental about the Onkwehón:we experience that universities ought to focus on?
It is here that Battiste and Henderson’s observation merits emphasis. Knowledge, heritage and consciousness are not just elements of Onkwehón:we culture.
They ought to be understood as essential, constitutive elements of Onkwehón:we identity, each contributing to its integrity as a coherent whole — and their unique manifestations ought to be of principal concern in an institutional approach toward protecting the integrity of Onkwehón:we identity.
An approach toward policy on the misrepresentation of Onkwehón:we identity that focuses on political relationships is protecting something very different.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
