Open Letter From Indigenous Women Scholars Regarding Discussions of Andrea Smith

Various Authors
We write to respond to widespread public discussion of well-known scholar-activist Andrea Smith’s history of contradictory claims to Cherokee identity through both enrollment and lineal descent. While concerns about her claims have been known and discussed within various indigenous women’s circles for years, many people are hearing details about them for the first time. The news has provoked a variety of responses from those committed to antiracist, antisexist, and anticolonial analyses and actions, including shock, incredulity, fear, anger, denial, and great sadness. Thus, differing and sometimes conflicting assumptions about the meanings and intentions of this discussion are circulating on social media. A prominent fear is that the discussion is motivated by a desire to undermine, police or ostracize an individual; another is that the work people find important in developing their understandings of colonization and sexual violence might now have to be jettisoned. We hope to reframe this discussion and to collectively clarify what we believe to be core issues at stake. We are indigenous women scholars from a number of different indigenous nations, communities, academic disciplines, and geographies who are committed to working for gender, sexual, and racial justice in the context of decolonization. We write with the intention to open up discussion. We hope to elicit productive dialogues about deeply fraught and painful issues, and to suggest paths forward for continued and complex analysis of the roles identity plays in the work we do. We do not claim to represent all indigenous women in Native American and Indigenous Studies (NAIS) or a monolithic indigenous feminism. There is diverse work within NAIS and Native/Indigenous gender, sexuality, and feminist studies, and also diverse perspectives within Native/Indigenous academic and activist communities about feminism. We respect that diversity. Additionally, we want to acknowledge the kinds of professional vulnerabilities that NAIS scholars are subject to, especially intergenerationally, through the politics of race, gender, and sexuality. Therefore, we did not invite untenured or adjunct faculty to sign this statement. We call first and foremost for accountability to the communities in which we claim membership. This is not a call for the punitive or the exclusionary. This case evokes people’s fears and vulnerabilities about very real histories of disenfranchisement, expulsion, discrimination, and normative policing in Indian Country and beyond. Thus it bears repeating: our concerns about Andrea Smith do not emerge from statist forms of enrollment or non-enrollment, federal recognition or lack thereof. They are not about blood quantum or other biologically essentialist notions of identity. Nor are they about cultural purity or authenticity, or imposing standards of identification that those who would work for or with indigenous communities must meet. Rather, our concerns are about the profound need for transparency and responsibility in light of the traumatic histories of colonization, slavery, and genocide that shape the present. Andrea Smith has a decades-long history of self-contradictory stories of identity and affiliation testified to by numerous scholars and activists, including her admission to four separate parties that she has no claim to Cherokee ancestry at all. She purportedly promised to no longer identify as Cherokee, and yet in her subsequent appearances and publications she continues to assert herself as a non-specific “Native woman” or a “woman of color” scholar to antiracist activist communities in ways that we believe have destructive intellectual and political consequences. Presenting herself as generically indigenous, and allowing others to represent her as Cherokee, Andrea Smith allows herself to stand in as the representative of collectivities to which she has demonstrated no accountability, and undermines the integrity and vibrancy of Cherokee cultural and political survival. Her lack of clarity and consistency in her self-presentation adds to the vulnerability of the communities and constituents she purports to represent, including students and activists she mentors and who cite and engage her work. This concerns us as indigenous women committed to opening spaces for scholars and activists with whom we work and who come after us. Asking for accountability to our communities and collectivities is not limited to Andrea Smith. Asking for transparency, self-reflexivity, and honesty about our complex histories and scholarly investments is motivated by the desire to strengthen ethical indigenous scholarship by both indigenous and non-indigenous scholars. This is one of the core guiding values of indigenous feminisms, and we believe that the long history of indigenous feminisms cannot and should not be reduced to Smith’s work as representative or originary, even as we recognize that her work on sexual violence and colonialism has had a profound impact on a wide range of constituencies. Though some express fear that the power of indigenous feminist critique might be undermined by raising these concerns, such fear is a reflection of the urgent need for scholars in and beyond indigenous studies to extend their reading and citational practices to include the length and breadth of indigenous women’s writings and activism over the years. Indigenous women have always been at the forefront of their communities in naming and combatting colonization, genocide, and gendered violence. Looking at the US and Canada alone, work by Paula Gunn Allen, Kim Anderson, Beth Brant, Chrystos, Sarah Deer, Ella Deloria, Jennifer Denetdale, Mishuana Goeman, Joy Harjo, Sarah Hunt, E. Pauline Johnson, Winona LaDuke, Emma LaRoque, Lee Maracle, Bea Medicine, Dian Millon, Deborah Miranda, Dory Nason, Melissa K. Nelson, Jessica Bissett-Perea, Kimberly Robertson, Luana Ross, Priscilla Settee, Audra Simpson, Leanne Simpson, Lina Sunseri, Elle-Maija Tailfeathers, and Melanie Yazzie to name only some, demonstrates the vitality and richness of indigenous women’s voices that speak against the racial, gendered, and sexualized violences of colonialism. Given the intellectual and emotional labor that Andrea Smith’s silence and lack of accountability has required us all—supporter or critic—to undertake, we would like to also ask for reflection and care in the stories generated to make sense of her contradictions and her silences. The history of Cherokee removal and dispossession is deeply woven into the same southeastern landscapes shaped by slavery and anti-black racism, and the Cherokee Nation’s disenfranchisement of the Freedmen must continue to be ethically addressed and challenged. So too must efforts to expunge the rolls of entire families in indigenous nations across this continent. At the same time, we recognize that histories of “playing Indian” have gone hand in hand with dispossession of land in Indian Territory during allotment. Playing Indian is enabled by and supports the dominant narrative that indigenous peoples are vanishing or already vanished. The material consequences of that narrative includes ongoing claims by the state, by science, and by non-indigenous individuals to indigenous lands, sacred sites, remains, and both individual and group representations of us. Our concerns are grounded in these histories, and we challenge both individual and structural forms of indigenous erasure. Smith’s self-acknowledged false claims and lack of clarity on her own identity perpetuate deeply ingrained notions of race—black, white, and Indian—that run counter to indigenous modes of kinship, family, and community connection. When she and others continue to produce her as Cherokee, indigenous, and/or as a woman of color by default, they reinforce a history in which settlers have sought to appropriate every aspect of indigenous life and absolve themselves of their own complicity with continued dispossession of both indigenous territory and existence. The stories we tell have consequences, and the harm that some stories produce goes beyond their individual context. One of the devastating consequences of Smith having served as the often singular representative of indigeneity in a variety of academic and activist social justice contexts is damage to strategic alliance building, especially between indigenous and non-indigenous women of color. Accountability to communities, kinship networks and multiple histories is part of the difficult work scholars of indigenous and critical race studies must be willing to undertake to ensure that our work combats rather than reinforces or leaves untouched the intricate dynamics of heteropatriarchal racist colonialism. Our desire here is to help move forward productive conversations surrounding the specific case of Andrea Smith and to also contextualize them within larger discussions long held in NAIS, a crucial field of inquiry. We hope that this current moment can provide scholars and activists involved with NAIS, critical ethnic studies, gender, sexuality and queer studies, and multiple activist communities an opportunity to expand their methodologies, citational practices, pedagogies, curriculum, advising/mentoring, and political organizing. We hope to foster collaboration across our fields and communities that builds our solidarity with LGBTQ, women of color, and all progressive anti-racist and decolonial scholars and activists, and that contributes to our ethical, integral, and accountable relations with one another. We do not ask anyone to step back from dialogue and disagreement, only that all proceed thoughtfully, with awareness of the often conflictual histories of dispossession, oppression and loss that underpin these conversations. Respectfully, Joanne Barker (Lenape [Delaware Tribe of Indians]), Professor of American Indian Studies, San Francisco State University Jodi A. Byrd (Citizen of the Chickasaw Nation), Associate Professor of American Indian Studies, English, and Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Jill Doerfler (White Earth Ojibwe), Associate Professor, American Indian Studies University of Minnesota-Duluth Lisa Kahaleole Hall (Kanaka Maoli), Associate Professor of Womenʻs and Gender Studies, Wells College LeAnne Howe (Enrolled citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma), Eidson Distinguished Professor in American Literature, University of Georgia, Athens J. Kēhaulani Kauanui (Kanaka Maoli), Associate Professor of American Studies and Anthropology, Wesleyan University Jean OʻBrien (White Earth Ojibwe), Distinguished McKnight University Professor, History, University of Minnesota Kathryn W. Shanley (Nakoda), Professor of Native American Studies, University of Montana Noenoe K. Silva (Kanaka Hawaiʻi), Professor of Hawaiian and Indigenous Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Shannon Speed (Citizen of the Chickasaw Nation), Associate Professor of Anthropology and Director of Native American and Indigenous Studies, University of Texas at Austin Kim TallBear (Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate), Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin Jacki Thompson Rand (Citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma), Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Iowa We note tribal and institutional affiliations for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed herein do not represent those of our tribes, institutions, or departments.

You need to be logged in in order to post comments Please use the log in option at the bottom of this page



fkholmes's picture
awesome. thank you so much.
Carolyn Torres's picture
This echoes so many of my own thoughts. I am glad folks are making statements. I was fearful that people were going to give her a pass on this.
Carolyn Torres
tmsyr11's picture
It appears when YOUR a no-body claiming indian ancestary, your left alone – no one cares (including having a collective response such as the 12 examples above). >>>>>>> From wikipedia = According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the Cherokee Nation has more than 314,000 members, the largest of the 566 federally recognized Native American tribes in the United States.[6] In addition, numerous groups claiming Cherokee lineage, some of which are state-recognized, have members who are among those 819,000-plus people claiming Cherokee ancestry on the US census. >>>>>>>>>>> However, when your considered a “some-body” and ignore or don’t response to requests (indian author, indian writer, indian ‘journalists, educators, etc.), then your a deemed a threat. There are countless posers and pretenders, however, there appears to be an understanding (W.Churchhill, Elizabeth Warren) “wink and nod”. A. Smith’s mistake was she should have acknowledged this demagague of “indian” professionals and writers and authors a long while ago. But this won’t be the last time – there will be more events where ‘indian’ culture is challenge thanks in large part to the SCOTUS ruling where every person – American or Illegal – has a right to call them-selves what they want. The SCOTUS ruling will steam-roll any last remaining sebalance of “indian” culture/traditions, practices here in America. When you deal with the devil in terms of ‘progressivism”, walking lock step- hand in hand, your trading your children, grand children for the sake of ‘humanity’ and that feel good feeling of peace, loving, etc. (the romance of progressivism). In reality, your giving up so traditions and practices for so little. THis is what our Grandparents and forefathers warned us about – did we listen?
Jay Corwin's picture
Blood quantum does matter. Someone who is 1/8th Hawai’ian playing indigenous dolly dress up for money and career gains is just as ridiculous as a fake Cherokee. I suspect that’s why there’s such a motherly call to dialogue instead of consternation. Glass houses?
Jay Corwin
Ryanbellerose's picture
funny but one of the people who signed this letter is not a native american, and Nais has encouraged non indians to teach false history that is very damaging to the indigenous rights struggle. the issue here is the negation of authentic indian voices, people like smith and churchhill do not speak for indians, perhaps its time to demand that people teaching native studies have actual degrees in relevant subjects? radical I know.
nokomis's picture
Dang, what’s with the comment “Therefore, we did not invite untenured or adjunct faculty to sign this statement.” Personally, I value and have learned from indigenous and non-indigenous women who are spiritual and understand the holy ground that we walk on and are more connected to Mother Earth. How many of this tenured faculty knows their own indigenous language and ceremonies? Need to focus on the next wave of feminist activism that engages in the LGBT movement, civil rights, gender inequality, homelessness and paying more attention to the environmental destruction of Mother Earth. Need to jump off the statistical bandwagon of blood quantum.
Lee Maracle's picture
This is the finest article I have read on this subject. It clearly places the onus on the person for declaring their sovereignty and their nationality. It also keeps open the possibility of our nations invoking a non-racial naturalization process to include new citizens in our our ranks. Further, it rejects the United States as the arbiter of our nations, our nationality and our sovereignty. It relies on our own laws a. Accountability to family and community. We in the Salish world have a ceremony and a teaching called “face yourself” which expects continued and continuous accountability from our citizens to their communities. It further recognizes that it is our communities, our families and our nations that are the arbiters and determinants of who is a citizen. The Sto:lo nation recognizes me as a member, so I am a member of the Sto:lo nation with all the rights and responsibilities that go with that. My family at Tsleil Waututh recognizes me as family even though the state of Canada does not, so I am a family member. I carry out my obligations and my responsibilities to my nation and my community. I maintain ties. I am leaving for my nation to carry out some of those obligations tonight. I do not vacillate. should my nation have failed to recognize me, I would call them to account. I am my father’s daughter. This is not what happened with Andrea Smith. I don’t give a rat’s butt what her pedigree might me. i want to know her nation and her family/community which is attached to that nation. There is no vacillation on this question. There was a time when my father [not married to my mother] did not want to publicly recognize me, though he was prepared to recognize me privately. Thus, I was not listed as his daughter in the DIA rolls. I refused to be his “dirty little secret”. It split my family. I told my friends who my family was and the circumstances surrounding me and my birth right as above because truth was expected of me. I declared my self my father’s daughter because I was raised as my grandfather’s granddaughter and my ta”ah’s great granddaughter. It is not up to my father to deny me my birthright within my nation. That is up to the women. My female relatives included me. I continued to love my father, to care for him – privately, but I assured him that I would not be silent about who I was. This is how I conducted self – no matter what others said. This is what I expect of those who declare they are any kind of Indigenous. We expect forthrightness, truth, honesty, bravery, honor and integrity. I have lived my life this way. You cannot claim to be Sto:lo one minute and deny it the next. I believe that I mentioned to J. Kehaulani that I once was accused of being Non-native . I jumped up and told everyone there, who my ancestors were and declared myself a sovereign Salish woman. I am respected for my values, my sense of sovereignty, my forthrightness and my courage. I cannot respect Andrea Smith her lack of Cherokee [or any other indigenous values, but I will not bring up her racial pedigree. I support this letter which clearly states it is not about blood quantum or racial pedigree. It is about “false claims and lack of clarity” [which is an absence of integrity and forthrightness]. False claims and lack of clarity violates our mode of kinship, connection, community and responsibility and without these things you are not an Indigenous person of any kind. I thank the women above who have shouldered the great responsibility of citizenship and the controversy surrounding this particular case. This responsibility fell to our women in our past and the women above have picked up this responsibility to help us go forward. To shirk our responsibility “… to help (people) move forward (in) productive conversations surrounding the specific case of Andrea Smith and to also contextualize them within larger discussions long held in NAIS, a crucial field of inquiry.” is so very crucial. I am very proud to be a part of this discussion. Hayzq’a siem. Read more at https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/07/07/open-letter-indigenous-women-scholars-regarding-discussions-andrea-smith
Lee Maracle

Read more