Queen’s University recently released its highly anticipated report after a year-long exploration into the institution’s approaches to indigeneity.

The report came about after a call was made by hundreds of Indigenous academics and community members following the news that several white settler faculty claiming indigeneity were, in fact, “pretendians.”

The report offers several recommendations that touch on everything from verification processes to developing a more robust Indigenous Studies program. While some Indigenous academics and community members welcomed the report, others suggested it relies too heavily on “colonial, imposed cards” and the concept of “Indian status.”

This critique based on cards and status is confusing, as the report is clear that individuals who have been disconnected from their communities due to colonialism have other avenues to demonstrate their genuine, integral connections. The report highlights the fact that we need a better understanding of race, Indian status and indigeneity in Canada.

The term “pretendian” is new and stems from what renowned Indigenous scholar, Vine Deloria Jr., termed, “the Indian Grandmother Complex.”

Recently, president of the Indigenous Bar Association, Drew Lafond, penned an opinion editorial suggesting the term “pretendian” is problematic. He said this is because the first people labelled as “pretendians” were “individuals who were unable to produce a status card under the Indian Act to ‘prove’ that they were Indigenous.”

But the word is actually a modern portmanteau that has gained traction with an established body of critical academic literature.

Lafond also suggested that the act of calling someone a “pretendian” has led to divisive and toxic interpretations of what it means to be Indigenous.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/we-need-a-better-understanding-of-race-status-and-indigeneity-in-canada-186889