More thought needed, reader

Page 5

Dear Editor: Boo-shoo!

I'm writing today to discuss your article "Solving the Indian problem" by Taiaiake Alfred published in Windspeaker, February 2000 edition. I have problems with what you are saying about developing our own membership. With your own community as an example, you put forward the question: "Is it wrong to tell your own people they must marry an Indigenous person?" and the other questions in the same line of thought.

I believe that it's wrong to force a person to marry into the community in order to remain a part of it. This seems to be merely reflecting the Indian Act policy of status change where the male could only pass on status. By replacing the male with "Indigenous person" you are simply re-inforcing the Canadian beliefs of what a Native is. Although you add a cultural argument, you are simply re-inventing this foreign description of "who is Native" and making it justified in your eyes.

I have some sympathy for your argument that cultural participation is more important than biological blood quota in determining community membership.

Your radical argument has some merit, but I think it needs some "touching" up in regards to your reasoning on how this membership criteria is justified.

Meeqwetch!

Ben Mckay - Anishnaabe