10 Reasons Why Joseph Boyden is a Problem and Should Go Away

Photo Credit: Wikipedia Commons

Photo Credit: Wikipedia Commons

If you’re reading this, you’re probably already well aware of the walking controversy that is Joseph Boyden. At times it might seem strenuous to keep track of all the mess-ups this guy keeps getting himself into. It’s completely understandable, so to help you out, Not Your Average Indian has put together this this concise summary of why he needs to go away so we can all chill and get on with our lives.

1. Let’s All Say it Together: He’s a White Guy

Let’s not waste too much time on this one. Jorge Barrera did an excellent exposé piece for APTN thoroughly analyzing and critiquing Boyden’s claims to Indigenous identity.

Simply put, Boyden has no community. No one claims him, his ancestry is shaky to say the least, he’s transitioned through various identities and he has no ancestral or physical connection to the places he claims.

What makes him Indigenous? Apparently, somewhere down the line, someone in his family was Indigenous, possibly Nipmuc and/or Ojibwe.

Maybe that is the case, but does that make someone Indigenous? If we all go back far enough we may find various ethnic make ups that are contained in our familial genealogies. Does that give us the right to claim to be a part of those communities, without having grown up, lived, experienced or have a direct parental connection to those places?

2. He Takes Up Space

This one’s pretty straightforward. Boyden takes up space that should be focused on Indigenous voices and experiences, specifically the voices of Indigenous women. He speaks to issues that he has not experienced and acts as a representative voice of Indigenous people. He continues to be included on panels related to Indigenous issues, where he continues to receive sympathy from primarily white audiences.

He has said that he “should allow those with deeper roots in the community to speak” and that he has been “too vocal on many Indigenous issues in this country.”

What’s worrying is whether Boyden would have stepped back from this role if he had not been called out. Is he only receding from this position simply because he’s been caught? If so, his intentions are absolutely alarming.

Even more problematic is Boyden’s ability to take up space through the use of his whiteness and pandering to white audiences. His books and stories are written from a position of whiteness and take space, accolade and funds away from legitimate Indigenous authors.

Also this:

3. Accountability? What Accountability?

Anyone who is Indigenous and is connected to an Indigenous community knows that you can’t just run your mouth. At some point, someone from your community is going to say, “Hey, that’s not cool, let’s talk” or, “Step down.”

Having a system of accountability in place is vital for anyone, but critically important for those in leadership positions or positions of representational power. If you step out of line, the community can collectively figure out what remedial actions are necessary or if you should even remain in your vocal position.

Unfortunately, Boyden has no community to hold him to account – to say, “Hey, let’s have a conversation.” Instead, he has critics and supporters, none of whom have communal relational connections to HIM, not to say they don’t come from a place of community.

There is no place-based Indigenous community to hold Boyden to account. He has friends and enemies, all of which he can easily disregard as they do not hold the relational power to ground him in a certain place that informs a certain way of being.

Boyden has described himself as a “nomad” transitioning between his home in New Orleans and wherever else he feels at home. But even nomads have a community that they are accountable to, that tells them when they’re messing up. If your “community” only pats you on the back and never critically engages with you, is that really a community, Boyden? Because that’s not the experience most of us have with our communities.

It’s also important to distinguish between Joseph Boyden, who has no Indigenous community claiming him, and someone forcibly removed from an Indigenous community. The latter can work on finding their way back and those communities can work on finding their lost ones. Boyden can’t do either because that Indigenous community for him does not exist.

Can he be adopted? Yes. Does that matter at the moment? No.

Also, can we start focusing our adoption ceremonies on our own and fellow POC instead of Boyden-types?

4. He Thinks Two-Spirit Means Having a Timeshare

Alright, NativeOUT defines two-spirit like this: “A Two Spirit person is a male-bodied or female-bodied person with a masculine or feminine essence. Two Spirits can cross social gender roles, gender expression, and sexual orientation.”

Furthermore, “Since Europeans arrived in the Americas, they’ve documented encounters with Two Spirit people. In many tribes, Two Spirit people were accepted and respected, but that changed with colonization. The colonizers, through forced assimilation efforts, changed acceptance into homophobia in many indigenous communities.”

Boyden, you are not two-spirited, you have never lived the experiences of two-spirited people, please stop appropriating Indigenous terms you don’t understand for you own desire to fit in.

Go away.

5. He Hears “Blood Memory Voices.” WTF?

Let’s just assume for a second that Boyden isn’t trying to come off as some kind of mystical Indian who channels his stories through his ancestors who in turn validate his existence and actions.

Actually, let’s not. That’s exactly what he’s doing.

For someone with such a shaky ancestral connection to actual Indigenous experiences, it is utterly shocking that he would relate to any concept with the word “blood” and “memory” in it.

Let’s be straightforward here: Boyden gets his stories from the lived experiences of other peoples and their communities.

Mic drop. Go away Boyden.

6. Boyden Appropriates and Benefits from Indigenous Stories and Knowledge

Boyden’s stories aren’t inspired through his “channeling of the ancestors.” He appropriates voices, experiences and stories from the people he communicates with and the communities in which he immerses himself.

Boyden utilizes these stories without due credit or at times the permission of the people or communities he appropriates from. These stories then catapult Boyden into literary fame and fortune, while the communities he extracts from get absolute shit in return.

This is textbook appropriation.

All that’s different about it is Boyden’s claim that it’s all good because he himself is Indigenous.

Naw Boyden, it ain’t all good.

This is an all too familiar story for Indigenous communities. We constantly deal with extractive industries, researchers and artists who wish to use us for their own purposes of fame and glory.

To make matters worse, he uses his appropriated stories to inform and assist a Canadian agenda that seeks to relegate those communities’ current problems into the past. He subverts community and individual stories in a way that they end up doing absolutely nothing to help the communities he so selfishly extracts from.

7. He Straight-up Plagiarized

Investigative journalist Jorge Barrera, recently known for his exposé piece on Joseph Boyden, uncovered some troubling similarities between Boyden’s work and the work of Ojibwe storyteller Ron Geyshick.

By comparing various passges in Boyden’s short story, “Bearwalker” and Geyshick’s short story “Inside My Heart,” Barrera was able to demonstrate how without credit Boyden both paraphrased and plagiarized various passages from Geyshick’s story.

Boyden has attempted to defend himself by saying he “heard” this story from an elder – Xavier Bird – during his many visits to Omushkegowak territory. Bird’s family disputes this story.

8. Boyden is Dangerously Divisive

It has become apparent that the Joseph Boyden debacle has created and intensified debates and divisions within the Indigenous community. Conversations over his identity, role and place in the community have pitted academics, artists, leaders and grassroots everyday people against one another.

Some have chosen to adamantly defend him while others have chosen to simply out him.

Most recently, accalaimed Sto:lo writer Lee Maracle came to Boyden’s defense by asserting that critiques towards his identity are acts of lateral violence. This has opened the door to social media critiques aimed at Maracle herself, demonstrating how Boyden divides and pits us against one another.

He needs to go away.

9. He Openly Defended Someone Accused of Sexual Assault

In 2014, Joseph Boyden edited and released “Kwe: Standing With Our Sisters,” an anthology of works dedicated to standing up against violence towards Indigenous women.

Oddly enough, two years later Boyden would go on to write and circulate a letter defending Steven Galloway, the UBC professor who was fired amid allegations of sexual abuse, harassment and misconduct. The letter specifically called for an independent investigation into the firing of Galloway as his supporters found the process to be “unfair.”

Boyden’s letter was signed and supported by prominent Canadian authors such as Margaret Atwood. The letter demonstrates Boyden’s disregard for the voices of women in making claims of sexual assault. Pretty problematic for a man who claims to stand behind Indigenous women and advocates for an Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous women.

Boyden could do better by women, specifically Indigenous women, or better yet he could just go away.

10. Canadians Love Him!

By Canadians, it should be made clear I am speaking of non-Indigenous settlers that reside within the country now known as Canada. Canadians have demonstrated through unquestioned support their lust for Boyden and the stories he tells.

They’ve even gone to the extent of vilifying Indigenous voices that are critical of Boyden.

Why? Cause he makes Canada’s history of abuse, genocide and assimilation of Indigenous peoples easy to stomach and relegates it to a distance place or an even more distant past.

The problem here is that it lets Canadians off the hook for the ongoing realities of land dispossession, racism, white supremacy and state/societal violence against Indigenous nations.

Boyden’s books reek of reconciliation, a concept Canadians have consumed to the point of euphoria. Canadians love stories that allow them to relegate their shit to an unfortunate past – anything that makes them think about the present and themselves as somehow oppressive will garner an immediate backlash. Hence why we should continuously remain critical of those who are so well loved by Canadian audiences.

Now that you know what’s wrong with Jospeh Boyden and why he should go away, start focusing your attention and support towards legitimate Indigenous authors! Check out this thread by @KateriAkiwenzie-Damm for some great suggestions:

Follow the author of Not Your Average Indian on Twitter @shadyhfz and Instagram @shadfez.

Edited by Sarah Boivin. Find her on Twitter @sarahboiv.

Fake Feathered Chiefs — Lets Talk.

David Guetta recently released an advertisement for one of his world renowned parties. His video features a slew of Indigenous misrepresentations and appropriations that have angered many Indigenous people, including myself.

Unfortunately, it seems that Guetta has been hiding in a cave somewhere producing his music because he hasn’t received the memo that appropriating Indigenous culture simply isn’t cool anymore. Unlike Guetta, many people in the music industry are beginning to understand that this type of behaviour is pretty absurd and as a result we have seen music festivals the world over banning the wearing of headdresses by those attending the festivals.

Now while this whole Guetta situation frustrates me, I am going to choose to address another related issue with the headdress that hits a little closer to home. Before I dive into it, let me just say that I am not trying to shift the conversation away from appropriation, rather I have always felt that there are many individuals addressing this type of appropriation and I feel strongly that we need to address issues inside our communities just as much as we address what happens outside our communities.

My issue is something that is sometimes talked about–but not really. It’s always shrugged off as an issue of non-importance. However, to me, I feel as though if we’re to tell the world to respect our culture (which includes our art forms, clothing and spirituality) then we must do the same. I have to say some of us, more specifically our “leaders”, have been doing a rough job at this. This issue is actually quite specific as well since it seems to occur among a select group of Individuals.

The issue is this: chiefs either wearing headdresses composed of fake feathers or chiefs from regions that never traditionally wore headdresses choosing to wear them as a symbol of their status. The double whammy is when you have a chief from a region that never wore headdresses choosing to wear one that is composed of fake feathers. Palm-in-face moment.

2013-08-20-08-39-30-chiefs

Example of First Nation Chiefs wearing fake feathered headdresses.

I’ll start this discussion by addressing the fake headdresses first. I don’t understand why leaders make this decision. I’ve seen first-hand, chiefs marching with us during many rallies I’ve attended only to notice that their headdresses were made from cheap black and white dollar store feathers. Now I am not saying they’re all doing this. Far from it. Many leaders respect what the feathers and the headdress means to their people. However, to the ones who are doing this, I ask, why? What’s the value? What’s the significance in wearing fake feathers? I feel as though these leaders either don’t value the importance of eagle feathers or feel as though symbolizing their status as chiefs is more important then respecting and honouring the importance of feathers. So here it goes, I am going to say it: there is no difference between the bonnet that joe shmo wears at some EDM festival and the dollar store feathers I’ve seen on some chiefs’ bonnets.

They both hold little value as the feathers themselves are what represents the importance of the bonnet, not the wearer.

Chiefs come and go, however the power and spirit of those feathers lasts forever . It has literally become a status symbol to some leaders and I strongly believe this needs to be called out. The next time you see a chief wearing a fake bonnet ask them, “hey, tell me the story behind those feathers?”. I for one have little-to-no patience for photo-op Indians and I have strongly feel as though some leaders view the bonnet as just that, a photo opportunity to showcase their chiefness to the world.

Now the second issue I spoke about was that leaders from regions that traditionally did not wear bonnets are choosing to wear them. This issue is a little more contentious and controversial. Mostly because many nations, especially in the eastern provinces, had our cultures immersed, mixed, and sometimes disintegrated by earlier contact with Europeans. Therefore, during times of culture revitalization throughout history, the war bonnet became a symbol of Indianness. Therefore, for some, the symbol (the bonnet) may be all they know about their own culture. However, that being said, many of us do know.

I believe a greater revitalization is currently happening. One that sees various nations breaking through the shackles of pan-Indianism and learning more about their own distinct cultures as distinct nations. This also means that people are beginning to represent that distinctiveness more prevalently. We see leaders who in the past may have worn war bonnets choosing to wear their own traditional head adornments instead.

Chief Isadore Day

Chief Isadore Day wearing an Anishinabe feather cap.

This was evident with Chief Atleo who would often wear his peoples traditional hat or with Chief Isadore Day who chooses to wear a traditional Anishinabe feather cap.

Therefore, for those leaders who aren’t catching on. You no longer have to look like a plains Indian to be an Indian.

Embrace your people. Embrace your distinctiveness and rock it with pride.

Terrorist Twins Claiming to be Algonquin — SO WHAT

0113 terror Ottawa

This story has been circulating around now for a couple days. Especially within the Algonquin community. Being Algonquin and Muslim I have been asked a few times as to what I think about this. Well, here it goes.

To start, this is simply bad journalism. From the larger outlets like the National Post to the smaller gems who I was surprised to see push this story as well  “cough APTN cough”. What exactly does their claim to be Algonquin have to do with their terrorism related charges? Absolutely nothing. Luckily most people who I have spoken to about this agree. Its an obvious attempt to create even more hysteria and fear among the Canadian populace. If most people I have spoken to know this then whats the issue here?

Well the issue is the ridiculous responses from Indigenous and non-Indigenous folks regarding these boys claims to their supposed Algonquin identity. The amount of crappy things I have heard over the past few days with regards to this story has honestly been disheartening and needs to stop.

First, for all the haters out there. Physical appearance is not a determinant of whether or not you are Indigenous. So lets just get that clear. Yes these boys have beards. No that does not mean they can’t possibly be Indigenous. Side note, the court artist made these boys look way more middle eastern then they actually do.

Second, being muslim does not mean someone cannot be Indigenous. Refusing to smudge as these boys have done, does not mean someone cannot be Indigenous (another side note, most Muslims would not have an issue with smudging). With that logic it could be argued that the die hard catholics in our Indigenous communities are not Indigenous. We all know where this is going, its a slippery slope people. Religion and race are not the same thing. You can choose to believe in whatever god you want to believe in and still retain your racial identity. I really want to emphasize how ridiculous it is that APTN’s coverage of this chose to end by reiterating that these boys refuse to smudge. As if thats the catalyst for being Indigenous.

Third, being labelled a terrorist does not mean you’re not Indigenous. I have heard this the most. “Theres no way they can be Algonquin, they’re Muslim terrorists, it doesn’t work”. HEAD SMASH ON TABLE. This is a common rhetoric that needs to end. The angelicizing (made that word up) of our people does more harm then good. Bad Indigenous people do exist. Its a reality. Just like its a reality in every culture and race around the world. Being bad or evil does not suddenly remove your racial identification. It can remove your community identity, but not your race. So terrorists, murderers, and drug dealers who claim to be Indigenous are not suddenly removed from being Indigenous because we don’t like their actions. We can remove them from the community but we cannot tell them not to identify with whatever they choose to identify with.

Fourth, when we examine the claims they are making there is some merit to their claims but there is also a whole lot to critique. To start, they lived in Vanier (for those who don’t know Ottawa, Vanier is a highly concentrated Indigenous neighbourhood). Second, they went to Rideau High (a high school with a high concentration of Indigenous students, where they probably encountered a lot of Indigenous students and may have felt accepted). Lastly, there grandmother who is pushing the claim carries the last name Brennan. Those who know Algonquin families, know that a legitimate Algonquin Brennan family does exist. With all that being said it is highly plausible that their is some legitimacy to their claims.

The two main critiques that I have heard most are that they do not know what community they are from and that this identity claim is just so that they can claim Gladue. This is a big issue for me as I feel like you can claim to be whatever you want to be, but if you want to claim a connection to a people and reap the benefits of that connection then I would argue you must be an accepted member of that community. Yet, we must all remember that many Indigenous people do not have a connection to their specific communities which is not the fault of the individual but as a result of the historical atrocities committed towards us. So can we really judge? I am not sure we can.

The second critique I have heard is, “they’re just using the status thing to claim Gladue”. For those who don’t know, Gladue refers to a court decision that basically states that one’s Aboriginal ancestry must be taking into account when sentencing for a crime. Its basically a method to apply restorative justice principles when dealing with Indigenous offenders. Knowing this and studying up a bit on Gladue, I have come to the conclusion that I don’t think Gladue will be applied to this case. First off, their identity claims are not solidified and AANDC is not going to rush the process just for these boys. Next, I don’t see how they will be able to explain how the effects of being Aboriginal has translated to them wanting to fight with ISIS. It doesn’t really add up.  Also, in a time when we are probably going to see a lot more terrorist related offences it does not make a whole lot of sense for a Judge to set this type of precedence in relation to these types of charges. Finally, no body knows exactly how long these boys have been attempting to gain status. The current trend in discussion is the assumption that they just up and decided this while in custody. We can’t just make assumptions when discussing race and identity. So stop.

I want to end this piece by reiterating that I am not in support of these young men whatsoever. My issue with this story is not the charges being brought up against them, rather the types of discussions that are happening with regards to their race and religion which I feel have been happening in a negative way. We must remember that the charges these boys are facing does not determine what they can and cannot identify as.