Culture and Identity
Patterns of Interaction with Western European Colonizers
Images of Indians as pre-contact “natives” are so thoroughly ingrained in Western society that the significant differences between the vast majority of people officially recognized as Red Lake Chippewa Indians by the United States Government, and the tiny minority who identify themselves as the autochthonous Ahnishinahbæótjibway are blurred. However, these differences encompass a wide range, including: history, genealogy, culture, language, religion, ecological infrastructure, and patterns of interaction with the Western European colonizers.
Wub-e-ke-niew repeatedly emphasized that, “Indians are not the indigenous people of this continent.” The existence of these two distinct groups is so important that I address it here at length:
Ultimately, Westerners use history as a political interpretation of process and a linearly organized description of selected events; but in the context of holistic non-linear Ahnishinahbæótjibway time, it is inseparable in countless ways from present reality, and has neither beginning nor end. In this sense, the history of the people who became identified as Chippewa Indians at Red Lake is closely connected to the abstract languages, hierarchical social structures, specialized priesthoods and ecological destruction which has been associated with Western Civilization since its inception.
One of the characteristic patterns of Western society has been an episodic hot-house flowering of “High Civilization” based on exploitation of the ecological infrastructure, resulting in environmental degradation, resource shortages and pressure for penetration into and colonization of “virgin” territory. In support of this, Western society has embedded within its languages, mythology, archetypes and culture-variants a series of fractals and ideologies which provide the boilerplate for this process: gaining entree (and establishing a base population of mixed-blood people rooted in colonial economies and values) through trade; disrupting the homeostatic balance of the indigenous permaculture through introduction of aggressive alien plants, more lethal-at-a-distance hunting technology, ecologically destructive agricultural practices and domesticated animals; introduction of alien and virulent plagues and germ warfare; disruption of the social structure of the indigenous population and encouraging the formation of factions (including through agent provocateurs); dehumanization and demonization of the indigenous population in the eyes of those colonizing through stereotypes and mythology; military attack accompanied by rape of indigenous women and economic marginalization and/or enslavement of the surviving men; colonization of the occupied territory by upwardly mobile men from the old center of civilization (a few of whom marry indigenous women and more of whom marry the mixed-blood daughters of traders and military men) and their entourages; and then the flowering of a new center of Western civilization.
Colonizing processes are ‘justified’ by religious dogma rationalizing genocide, i.e. ““we are God’s chosen people,” and an “instrument of Divine Will.” “God promised us this land,” is as old as the Bible and more current than Manifest Destiny, but consideration of who was already living on the “promised land” is rarely within Western paradigms.
Western civilization has depended on maintaining their people’s allegiance to a corporate body other than the grassroots community and the extended family (eg. the Church, the Brethren and the Nation-State); a mythological structure celebrating conflict, violently heroic masculine archetypes, rugged individualism, disconnection from the land in an aboriginal sense; and shifting gender balance toward inherently violent male domination. The “world religions” of Western Civilization reflect this imbalance in religious dogma from which women have been almost eliminated, and in which the female lines of descent serve mainly to segregate colonizer from colonized, ineradicably [‘racially’] marking the colonized as among the “subject” classes. “Racism” and most ‘identity politics’ serve as powerful forces in creating and maintaining colonial ‘caste’ systems and reducing hegemonic efforts necessary to retain colonial and post-colonial domination.
The social structure of western civilization is hierarchical—which over time has led to an artificially created, endogamous upper class and disruption of the exogamous marriage links between communities of peoples consigned to the lower classes. The structure is maintained by what Wub-e-ke-niew called “man-made behaviors and emotions” of anger, hatred and violence. He explains, “It has to have chaos in it. When it starts becoming stable, the status quo becomes alarmed, and so they have to send their agents and fifth columnists in there to destabilize it again. Non-violence is like the devil to them.”
By 1500, the expansion of ‘Western Civilization’ had reached its limits in Eurasia and North Africa: the conflicts of the Middle Ages were internecine conflicts on previously colonized territory. As Wub-e-ke-niew, who spent the end of World War II in Germany, tersely put it, “The ecology was a mess, plundered to the bedrock.” Columbus’ voyages presented the opportunity for a reiteration of old patterns of Western expansion into previously unexploited land. As Wub-e-ke-niew described it, “It was the plunder, sacking and destroying of what was a paradise. Now, our continent is becoming like old Europe—you can’t drink the water here anymore. They’re doing the same thing here that they did over there.”
The people who eventually became the Red Lake Métis were mostly coerced and quasi-voluntary emigrants from France; personae non grata shanghaied from the lower social classes, and included those of visibly Moorish descent. Both men and women were exported into the serf and servant classes of seventeenth-century Quebec, and their descendants were recruited as voyageurs and other laborers in the hinterland of the fur trade, many of them settling in proximity to the fur posts. As J. Peterson writes,
By the 1790’s, trading hamlets housing from a single extended family to several hundred persons had been established at Peoria, Cahokia, Chicago, Fort Wayne, Ouiatanon, Parc aux Vahes, Riviere Raisin, Sault Ste. Marie, Petit Kaukalin, Portage, La Pointe and elsewhere. Perceived but dimly by the seaboard world, and largely ignored between 1763 and 1816, the inhabitants of these towns, like those of La Baye, were, as it happens, people of primarily mixed race — Métis.
The popular mythology is that mixed-blood Indians were generated from liaisons between European men and indigenous women, but the indigenous population both male and female has been decimated by European diseases in the 1500’s and 1600’s. After a handful of aboriginal women married Europeans during the first generations of European occupation, most of the “White-Indian” intermarriages were with mixed-blood women, either from the Métis villages or from among those described as “native women” from “adjacent band villages.” These so-called Indian, Tribal and Band settlements associated with the explicitly Métis villages were distinct from the aboriginal villages quite early in the history of Euro-American colonization, and received a continual influx of White patriliny through “Young Métis males and ‘White’ newcomers to the trade [who] had ... usually ephemeral encounters with native women.” According to Wub-e-ke-niew, the Métis also incorporated runaways from the European expeditions and settlements: Spanish draftees, indentured servants and transportees from the British settlements, black slaves, and the dissatisfied from every walk of life. Just as significant populations of feral four-legged European imports: Equus asini, cattle, etc., established themselves in the interior of the continent, so did the Eurasian/African varieties of Homo sapiens.
The history of the Métis includes the history of those William W. Warren called “Ojibway,” who he describes as coming from “the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, about the Gulf of the St. Lawrence River.” Among them were the professional hunters and courier du bois of the fur trade. According to Warren “In the early part of the century ... [they] had already commenced the custom of yearly visiting Quebec, and afterwards Montreal, taking with them packs of beaver skins, and returning with the fire-arms, blankets, trinkets, and firewater of the Whites.”
The European colonization of this continent, and the associated fur trade, was an intensely and often violently competitive business, extending the wars of the European nation-state into their colonies. The nearly four hundred years of “Indian Wars” which characterized early American history were in fact European and Métis wars. Some of them were specifically fur trade conflicts, like that described by Wheeler-Vogelin and Hickerson (citing Tanner) as the
Conflict between the Hudson’s Bay Company and the North-West Company. [Tanner] was present in the interest of [the] former company when its employees seized the latter’s trading fort at Pembina in June, 1816. Tanner states, “In forty days after we left Rainy Lake, we arrived at Red River, and took the fort at the mouth of the Pembinah, without any difficulty, there being few or no persons there, except squaws and children, and a few old Frenchmen ...
They also quote Tanner in his discussion of the “Danger of attack by North-West [Fur] Company employees, disguised as Indians.” This Euro-American tactic in intra-immigrant conflict also was used in the Boston Tea Party and some of the raids on the nineteenth-century wagon trains: people of European heritage dressing up as Indians to displace responsibility for their actions onto Indian scapegoats. In other cases, there is question as to whether or not the “wars” actually occurred. As Wub-e-ke-niew points out, “They talk about wars, but they don’t talk about the cemeteries. Where are the bodies buried?”
When France lost their colonial empire to England in the French and Indian Wars, the French Métis’ political and commercial superstructure was supplanted by the British and American fur empires that took over the French ones, in the case of Hudson’s Bay Company with a royal charter granting semi-sovereign status. Métis people continued to participate in the British and American fur trade until it declined because of the near-extermination of the fur-bearing animals, habitat destruction by logging companies, and agricultural settlement by northern Europeans in the mid-nineteenth century. But, for more than half a century, United States administration of the “Louisiana Purchase” was through the infrastructure established by the fur companies, and was largely directed toward the French and Métis who remained in the area. Aboriginal Indigenous people like the Ahnishinahbæótjibway remained mostly beyond Euro-American paradigms.
As detailed above, so-called Indian Treaties were founded on the “doctrine of discovery,” and rested on Western European concepts of property ownership and eminent domain. Wub-e-ke-niew adds, “The Indian Treaties were a European concept, and had nothing to do with the aboriginal indigenous people.” The Treaties were negotiated through the aegis of the United States military and the fur post superintendents of the era, at Red Lake including C.H. Beaulieu and William Aitkin, in the English and pidgin Chippewa languages, but not in Ahnishinahbæótjibway. Wub-e-ke-niew’s and my genealogical research backed up his assertions that that the Indian Chiefs whose X-marks appear to be forged on the original treaty documents at the National Archives were Métis; some of them were professional Indians who were recorded as having agreed to treaty after treaty. They were not Ahnishinahbæótjibway.  As Wub-e-ke-niew puts in 1996, “Selling land, selling the bones of our ancestors, was not something we would do. Signing treaties is a part of the Western European paradigm, it is not part of the aboriginal paradigm.”
Louis Riel’s 1869-70 Rebellion among the Canadian Métis coincided with the forcible relocation of both Métis and aboriginal people onto Indian reservations in the United States. On both sides of the border, the Métis became more explicitly defined as conquered and occupied peoples, their lives more tightly constricted by increasing Northern European logging and settlement in the area, and by Euro-American (including Anglo-Canadian) political administration. In Northern Minnesota, some Métis merged with the White population, some formed enclaves (such as those near Red Lake Falls) in the midst of northern European immigrants’ settlements, and many became re-defined as Indians.
“Tribe” and “Band” are Western European terms of social organization, and have no connection to indigenous Ahnishinahbæótjibway social structure, which was egalitarian and based on Dodems. However, the United States Government used and continues to use their imposed tribal and band organization as the structural basis for their administration of Indian, and for Public Law 638 “Indian Self Determination” administration through federally-established tribal councils.
Formal tribal definition began, from the top down, with White descriptions of territory within clearly delineated borders, and continued with trading posts, missionization and with the Indian treaty and annuity-payment process. Official tribal designation was at times capricious—in some cases, for example instances where one brother was officially classified as a “Sioux” while another was a “Chippewa.”
On January 14, 1889, the United States Congress passed the “Act for the Relief and Civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota” (‘Nelson Act’), which redefined the “tribal” boundaries in the Treaties of 1837 and 1863 to conform to Minnesota state boundaries as established at statehood in 1858, and created a new entity, now federally recognized as the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and the Red Lake Band of Chippewa. Among the consequences of that 1889 legislation was the taking of more than three million acres of land at Red Lake, and extensive logging. The Nelson Act also mandated allotment:
Sec. 3. … all of said Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota, except those on the Red Lake Reservation, shall, under the direction of said commissioners, be removed to and take up their residence on the White Earth Reservation, and thereupon there shall, as soon as practicable, under the direction of said commissioners, be allotted lands in severalty to the Red Lake Indians on Red Lake Reservation, and to all the other of said Indians on White Earth Reservation …”
In consequence of Indian allotment and subsequent land sales, White French Canadians, Scots, Irishmen, and Scandinavians became incorporated into the Métis communities that comprised the majority of those defined by the Whites as Chippewa Indians in Minnesota – even when enumerated by the Minnesota Chippewa Commission in 1889.
The Ahnishinahbæótjibway, and other aboriginal indigenous people closely associated with them, were the autochthonous people in the Great Lakes watershed area, and in the headwaters regions of the Mississippi River and Red River of the North. Until the mid-nineteenth century, the vast network of navigable waterways in this area were the primary means of transportation for everybody, and influenced both aboriginal people’s and immigrants’ trade routes and settlement patterns. One of main reasons that the Ahnishinahbæótjibway at Red Lake survived was that Red Lake is at the headwaters. From an aboriginal perspective, it is at the “crossroads” of the three principal watersheds of this continent; but from the coastally oriented European perspective, it is upstream from everywhere and thus remote.
Wub-e-ke-niew, referring to the Ahnishinahbæótjibway ideographic documents on birchbark, wood, parchment, and stone, writes, “According to our written traditions, this has been our land since human beings first existed—through four ice ages and at least 36,000 generations. The bones of our ancestors, the living beings upon the earth, and the earth itself are all one, inseparable ... I put my hands into the Earth, and understand, ‘this is where I come from, and this is where I will return.’”
For many millennia, the history of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway was one of egalitarian and harmonious co-existence with other, inter-related aboriginal indigenous peoples and with Grandmother Earth. The ecological infrastructure was a sustainable permacultural one, and aboriginal indigenous societal archetypes were not one of expansion and migration, but of dynamic equilibrium centered around the ancestral lands of the patrilineal Dodems, within the extensive network of kinship inter-relationships generated by Dodems and seventh-generation exogamy. Like other species in the complex mature ecosystems at the foundation of Ahnishinahbæótjibway permacultural subsistence, the focus was on maintaining vibrant harmony rather than aggressive competition. Genuinely understanding the pre-Columbian history of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway necessitates a paradigm shift, a redefinition of “history” beyond the Western European historical orientation toward hierarchical leaders and violent conflict, kings and wars.
Shortly after Europeans in significant numbers made landfall on the continental mainland, Eurasian/African epidemics began raging through the indigenous population. Violent Eurasian societal patterns engendered the kinds of unbalanced host populations that were favorable for the development of aggressive plagues. There was also a degree of selective adaptation and even co-evolution of the Eurasian populations and social structures with these virulent diseases. Reasonably high percentages of the Europeans survived measles, tuberculosis and even smallpox and the bubonic plague. The aboriginal indigenous peoples of this continent, on the other hand, had developed an ecological and sociological infrastructure that did not readily provide vectors for sustained epidemics of virulent Eurasian diseases, consequently had neither immunity nor plagues of their own to give the Europeans, and were decimated.
The population crash due to epidemics between the late fifteenth century and the mid-sixteenth century has been estimated by some authors, including Wub-e-ke-niew and Kirkpatrick Sale, to have exceeded 99%. Because the Ahnishinahbæótjibway and other similar peoples had acephalous egalitarian societies, the devastation from these epidemics did not create the degree of social deconstruction that an analogous crash would have in hierarchical Eurasian societies, but it still had a profound impact on the surviving indigenous people here, whose communities were reeling from the impacts of devastating plagues, when they were first confronted by people who behaved in inconceivably violent ways.
Contact between European and indigenous people was frequently characterized by violence on the part of the Europeans. Early European records contain casual references to nearly random killings of non-violent indigenous peoples. The deeper structural violence of Western Civilization is not usually recorded by the European chroniclers, because it was part of the “background” of their culture, but this pervasive background of violence made a profound impact on the Ahnishinahbæótjibway. For example, Wub-e-ke-niew describes his youthful reaction to the ubiquitous Catholic images of crucifixion as “traumatic and profound.”
One of the principal strategies of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway to the influx of the peoples of Western Civilization, which was also adopted by some Métis in response to the nineteenth-century influx of Anglo-Americans and their cohorts, for example, as described by Ignatia Broker in Night Flying Woman, was avoidance.
In his historical retrospective of Catholic missionary activities at Red Lake, the Rev. Alban Fruth describes many hundreds of people “in the woods” near Red Lake in 1879. As is apparent from a comparison of the 1879 Annuity records with the 1885 Indian Census, most of these people had “disappeared” by the time the United States Government policy began shifting away from the bounty-hunting mentality of the mid-nineteenth century and toward the more subtle genocide of compulsory education: forced acculturation and differential policies in bureaucratic administration.
The period between 1885 and the early twentieth century was one of military occupation of what Wub-e-ke-niew refers to as “concentration camps called Indian reservations.” Métis, who were considered by both themselves and the Anglo-Americans to be “conquered “people, as well as Ahnishinahbæótjibway, who had never gone to war and were not conquered, were confined to the reservations, although the Métis were more likely to be able to get a “pass” from the Indian agent for travel and to search for a spouse to whom one was not ‘too closely related.’.
Genocide of the remaining aboriginal people continued: including through murder. One of Wub-e-ke-niew’s great aunts, Ah-zhe-day-be-nais-eke, was beaten to death. That murder was recorded in the early twentieth-century Beltrami County death records as a “forest death”; through bureaucratic policies that used the demographics and cultural traits of the Métis to encourage their survival at the expense of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway; and through the forcible removal of children from their parents as a part of the boarding school system established on all reservations by the 1890s.
By 1996, there remained only a few individuals with an Ahnishinahbæótjibway Dodem, and most of them had some Métis ancestry on their matriline. The community structure, the culture as a living culture, the language spoken as a native language of everyday life, and the extended families of these aboriginal indigenous people are gone. Although there are a handful of children who still have a Dodem, as Wub-e-ke-niew put it during the spring of 1996: “Because of [our seven-generation avoidance of] incest, they do not have anybody to marry in the Dodems. We are an extinct people. The White man said he was going to exterminate us, and he has succeeded. He is using his Indians to hide his genocide of my people.” From an Ahnishinahbæótjibway perspective, the Métis/Indians and other European invaders who preceded the Anglo-American ones were pioneers in the military sense of the word, as well as being agents of genocide and complicit in the cover-up of that holocaust.
According to Wub-e-ke-niew and other Ahnishinahbæótjibway, autochthonous identity is centered in the patrilineal Dodems that formed the basis of Ahnishinahbæótjibway social infrastructure. Wub-e-ke-niew says,
The Indians’ identity depends on their matriline, and on being identified by the Federal Government as ‘Federally Recognized Indians.’ They have a European patriline, on both the male and female sides. The Ahnishinahbæótjibway do not depend on the United States Government for our identity, although we were kidnapped into the boarding schools in an attempt to assimilate us into being Indians.
The several groups of Indians described above are somewhat endogamous along social class and ethnic lines, although there is also a tendency, encouraged by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for women of all of groups to continue “marrying out” to White men to “create a better life for the children,” which according to Wub-e-ke-niew,
Never happened. They are still locked into the Indian community, and the White man who ‘married in’ is becoming an Indian. Many of the Whites—who at that time were called ‘squaw men—who married into the Indian community during the mid-1800’s to the early 1900’s were classified as ‘halfbreed Indians’ on the U.S. Government records. Their descendants try to compensate for their mixed ancestry by being ‘real Indians’ and hating White people. They end up hating themselves and even committing suicide, because they are White. The paradox is that Indian is a pseudo-identity created by the White man.
The Chippewa Métis of northern Minnesota include a fairly tightly inter-related group of people with relatives on all of the Minnesota Chippewa reservations as well as having relatives, many of whom do not acknowledge their existence, in the White communities. The Métis endogamous intra-marriage patterns are presently exacerbated by conscious decisions to marry within the local federally created “Indian Band” community to keep their children’s Indian blood quantum above the ¼ ‘degree of Indian blood’ cut-off for eligibility for many federally-funded Indian programs [and thus, in many federally-recognized Indian ‘tribes,’ for ‘tribal enrollment].
Wub-e-ke-niew also saw a pattern of intentional “hybridization following the plant- and animal-breeding patterns of Western Culture. When the White man hybridized these people, he took away their Dodem and their family structure, and if they ever had any aboriginal ancestry it’s being bred out of them, so that it’s no longer indigenous. They are following Western Darwinian and Spencerian concepts of ‘survival of the fittest,’ but they have become so tightly inbred that they are getting sick.”
The endogamy of the Métis and other peoples of Western Civilization is described by Wub-e-ke-niew as being promoted by the Judeo-Christian Bible. He points out that Adam’s sons apparently married their siblings and the grandchildren of Noah allegedly married their own first cousins without repercussion, and then asks, “What about all of the animals on the ark? The White man’s stories are really promoting incest.”
One of the characteristic patterns of the Métis, encouraged by the Quebeçois government during the seventeenth century with bounty-payments for families having many children, advocated by the Roman Catholic Church, and continuing at Red Lake into the 1940’s, is big families: many couples having ten or more children, creating what Wub-e-ke-niew describes as “Overpopulation. The land was not intended to support that many people, just like the rivers were not intended to be dammed up.” The demographic differential in reproduction rates increased the Métis majority in relation to the Ahnishinahbæótjibway, who intentionally spaced children and controlled reproduction to stay in balance with the environment.
Fur companies’ rotating tours of duty also had an enduring impact on Métis social structure. The men who “overwintered” in the interior were hired for a limited tour of duty at a particular location, after which the employee was usually transferred to another place. In adaptation to the limited tenure of these men, there developed a kind of serial polygamy among the fur company engagés and the Métis women with whom they had families: the men moved through geographical space and through a series of families, and the women remained associated with a particular outpost and were given, gambled or sold to another man when their husband’s tour of duty at that outpost was finished. This pattern of serial polygamy has persisted among many of the Métis families at Red Lake.
Synchronous polygamy also was a common form of marriage among French Métis men,  a number of men in the Red Lake family trees having families with two women or more women simultaneously, and a number of wealthy men having children with eight or nine different women, and hundreds of descendants by the third generation. Synchronous polygamy reflected social status at a time when ability to support more than one family simultaneously marked a successful commercial hunter or shrewd trader, and it also reflected the buying and selling of women that is recorded to have occurred during the fur trade era.
Polygamy was a hallmark of a colonization strategy with roots deep in Western Civilization’s tradition: eliminating indigenous patrilinies and supplanting them with those of the colonizers. Wub-e-ke-niew frequently cited the Judeo-Christian biblical exhortation (Genesis 24:19):
And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east; and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed
as an example of this orientation. Polygamy was an efficient use of the available men. Both of these Métis forms of polygamy contrast with the preferred form of Ahnishinahbæótjibway marriage: monogamy in the context of the Dodem network of extended family.
According to Wub-e-ke-niew, Ahnishinahbæótjibway regarded marrying one’s seventh cousin as “incest,” and before confinement onto Indian reservations in the last third of the nineteenth century, maintained a geographically vast network of extended family through in-married women. Prior to the decimation of the population, there were at least 32 Dodems. There were only four Ahnishinahbæótjibway Dodems with living members remaining at Red Lake by 1996; two additional Dodems there lost their last living representative in the mid-1990s.
The near total annihilation of Ahnishinahbæótjibway Dodems is obscured by the Métis’ Indian Clans. Some Métis Clans are derived on the matriline from Algonquian Clans, and inherited either matrilineally or patrilineally according to circumstances; and some of them are specifically non-Ahnishinahbæótjibway Clans. At Red Lake, the Eagle is one such Clan, according to oral history derived from the, “American eagle on the twenty-dollar gold piece,” as a part of Ahnishinahbæótjibway efforts to integrate the Métis into indigenous systems of government and societal organization. Citing Quimby, Peterson writes of the historical depth of these creole clans,
By the turn of the 18th century, Central Algonkian and Siouan bands were being forced to confront the ticklish problem of clan affiliation for countless abandoned Métis children. It is suggestive, however, that whereas the Ojibway [sic] were compelled to create totemic clans for children of British and American fathers — appropriately the “Lion” and “Eagle” clans — no such clan name has been discovered for children of French-Canadian fathers of this period.
According to Ahnishinahbæótjibway at Red Lake, “Métis Clans” historically included the Loon and Crane.
The destruction of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway Dodems at Red Lake was further camouflaged by the Red Lake tribal council, in Wub-e-ke-niew’s understanding as a part of the ongoing discourse about “legitimacy” between the Métis leaders and the indigenous people at Red Lake. After Wub-e-ke-niew began writing about the centrality of Dodems to Ahnishinahbæótjibway identity – initially using the word “clans” – the tribal council began emphasizing “Clans,” including commissioning Johnson Loud, Jr. to design a ‘flag’ featuring seven ‘clans,’ and naming the casinos operated under the aegis of the Red Lake tribal council, the “Seven Clans Casinos.” The license plates issued by the Red Lake tribal council, 1995-2003, offered local residents a choice of one of the “seven clans” animals as the background graphic.
Ahnishinahbæótjibway definitions of incest precluded marriage or any other sexual relationship between individuals who shared any common ancestor within seven generations, who belonged to the same Dodem, or with anyone sharing a Dodem with an individual’s ancestors over five generations, i.e. excluding as classificatory relatives the people of twenty-seven Dodems as potential mates for any individual, as well as excluding thousands of closer-than-eighth-cousin blood relatives. Ahnishinahbæótjibway perspectives on incest, in combination with patrilocal residence for men and a preference for geographical exogamy, resulted in each individual belonging to a vast constellation of relatives with whom sexual interaction was beyond the bounds of what Chomsky calls “thinkable thought.” Ahnishinahbæótjibway exogamy is in distinct contrast to the nuclear family cross cousin marriage described to anthropologists including Landes by her Métis informants. Such nuclear family structures consistently include what in Ahnishinahbæótjibway terms is extreme incest: among Métis families marriages between second cousins are not unusual and even marriages between first cousins and occasionally half-siblings are tolerated.
An Ahnishinahbæótjibway answer to the question, “Who are you?” was in terms of Dodem and place, with specific descriptions of kinship affiliation often extending across two centuries on the patriline, and through fourth and fifth cousins and their families. Although the birchbark scrolls upon which extensive genealogies were once recorded no longer exist within the community, a wealth of genealogical information was retained as oral tradition. There was a pattern of “relative-talking” which appears to have been fairly directly transposed into English vocabulary, in which details of biological and in-law relationships are quickly discussed and confirmed, and the disappointment of being told by an older person that an attractive member of the opposite gender is “related” – and therefore unavailable romantically – was not infrequently a topic of discussion among the young and unattached.
Wub-e-ke-niew and other Ahnishinahbæótjibway had the understanding that “inbreeding” creates less robust offspring (i.e., if one is too closely related to one’s mate, the potential for matching recessive genes with unpleasant consequences is far greater). One of his more global statements is that “the French people were so short because they married their own relatives [they were short, and they did marry second or third cousins almost as a matter of preference, viz. the Chippewa ‘cross-cousin marriage’]; Ahnishinahbæótjibway were tall.” This may seem to verge on the politically “hot” arguments about “race” for which Western society is notorious, although the context and significance are quite different in an egalitarian and non-violent society, and the diverse gene pool that would be maintained by broadly-defined exogamy would be more likely to provide for long-term survival of any group.
The importance of the Dodem and it centrality to Ahnishinahbæótjibway being is crucial to understanding what it meant to be Ahnishinahbæótjibway. The significance of extended family in an egalitarian society is entirely different than in a hierarchical one—and most Westerners do not have the referents to fully comprehend the extensive web of relatives that was both normal and at the foundations of Ahnishinahbæótjibway society.
Ahnishinahbæótjibway Dodems are at the very core of our autochthonous sense of the “meaning of life,” of community and of personal identity. Because Ahnishinahbæótjibway awareness of “self” is without personal boundary—the connectedness of life is a constant part of Wub-e-ke-niew and others’ perceptual and conceptual field—sense of the meaning of “I” has at the very least a different focus than that of those whose formative years were spent in egocentric cultures. Ahnishinahbæótjibway extended kinship seems, in deeper analysis, to be inseparable on some level from “ego.” Wub-e-ke-niew explained,
The Dodems and extended family is the singular “I,” if it can be translated at all. The Dodem was everything. It was ‘tightness’ and organic intimacy.
He adds that one of the reasons that both Whites and Indians grieve so deeply at the funeral of a matriarch or patriarch is that, with the death of that elder,
They are losing the glue that binds them together, and after they go home from the funeral, they will never be together at that family level again. But, that human need for closeness is still there. Those needs are not being met in Western European culture.
After the funeral, when the patriarch or matriarch is gone, there is nothing left to connect them as a family. It’s a sad moment. They know that they have lost something that cannot be explained by their language, and they face the black void, an emptiness that is a part of Western culture. So, the survivors will go looking at the churches or the bar to fill that void, never realizing that what they’re looking for is right in front of them. They need to change their nuclear families into extended families, and learn how to work them—and that’s going to take some time.
Wub-e-ke-niew also repeatedly emphasized that
White people do not have any extended family structure, and Western institutions (such as the Catholic Church) depend on their members being deprived of the fundamental and natural human need for family. In order to maintain the nuclear family, they need to keep members of their society as children, and never let them grow up to become mature human beings. Their society is put together so that people are emotionally dependent on institutions which do not actually meet their needs, so that they need to ask an artificial patriarch, who also is not connected or responsive to their basic needs, for favors like a job. They keep looking for deeper meaning within their psyche, without ever filling that emptiness that comes from the destruction of their extended families. They take calves and puppies and kittens away from their mothers as a part of the domestication process, and they do the same thing to themselves. In this way, they destroy their own humanity. By separating an individual from their extended family, they obliterate their inherent identity and give them another, artificial identity that’s under the hierarchy’s control and is used for the profit of the elite. Westerners’ extended families [in the sense of Dodems] have been taken away from them as a part of the process of ‘domestication’ to which they have been subjected by Western Civilization.
If one understands some aspects of social structure in terms of fractals, then Wub-e-ke-niew was speaking of fractals of connection: self in terms of the interconnectedness of the Dodems, the Dodems in terms of the interlinked communities of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway and other human beings, humanity in terms of the interconnectedness of all communities of life. As an isolated individual without deep connection, “I” is not only mortal, but because of the disconnection, is also relatively devoid of meaning. As an interconnected part of a loving and egalitarian whole, “I” becomes re-defined in the context of a relatively immortal super-organism, with referents on both sides of the transition called “death,” and with access to a much deeper dimensionality of meaning.
Exile brings a person to a deep visceral understanding of the profound interconnections between self and community, of the surprisingly tenuous nature of “I” when stripped of the communities of “we” in which human beings are embedded. In indigenous contexts, the meaning of “community” as a part of Ahnishinahbæótjibway Dodems transcends death. As Wub-e-ke-niew explained,
The Dodem continues, and each Ahnishinahbæótjibway person is a part of it, so they live on despite their physical deaths. This can be compared with a President who wants to be immortal, so he starts a war or something, but his family drops out. Everybody wants to be somebody—rather than as a single unit, as a family, as the Dodem. That’s how I see it.
And, he stressed, “the love and connectedness which are inherent in Ahnishinahbæótjibway extended family are a normal and natural requirement of all living beings.”
Although we spent thousands of hours recording oral history in conjunction with genealogy, the Ahnishinahbæótjibway family trees in our computerized databases are truncated in comparison to some of the Métis’ because the written records of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway were destroyed, the oral transmission of the depth of genealogical knowledge was interrupted by the incarceration of the young in boarding schools away from their elders during the early teen years when they would have mastered that knowledge, the churches did not keep records on the non-acculturated non-Christians, and the B.I.A. does not appear to have kept much genealogically useful information regarding the Ahnishinahbæótjibway at Red Lake prior to 1878.
Métis culture developed in close association with the fur trade, through more than three centuries. The feudal infrastructure at its European roots is still apparent, for example in the system of patronage presently exercised by the federally-established tribal councils, whose power extends beyond the political and administrative, and includes handing out jobs, ‘Indian housing’ and other largesse derived from federal programs administered by the tribal council, and allocation of casino revenues.
Details of Métis history and their rich cultural heritage are beyond the scope of this paper. What is at issue: the interrelationships between the Métis majority at Red Lake, and the Ahnishinahbæótjibway, and the ways in which Wub-e-ke-niew’s challenges to Métis internalization of federal Indian identity, and his assertions that Métis claims to being “Indians” were manifestations of U.S. colonial hegemony, seem to have been perceived as profoundly threatening by the ‘Indian’ elite at Red Lake.
Wub-e-ke-niew’s objections were to Métis claims of “Indian-ness” and thus by their federal recognition to ‘Indian’ identity: specifically including the ways in which Métis-as-Indians were, as he put it, “used and abused” as agents of colonization against the Ahnishinahbæótjibway: ‘selling’ land and resources that did not belong to the Métis; ‘legitimizing’ federal occupation of Ahnishinahbæótjibway land and expropriation of Ahnishinahbæótjibway rights and resources; as direct agents in environmental destruction [clear-cutting forests, hunting destructively, over-fishing, collaborating in toxic waste dumping, etc.]; and for their obscuring the genocide committed against the Ahnishinahbæótjibway. In 1994, he expressed his objections and concerns in We Have The Right To Exist:
Métis people have their own identity, and the capability of realizing themselves as a people in their own right, but they cannot do it from within the Indian identity, because that’s owned by the White man. I can’t speak for anyone else; it is up to each person to figure out who they are and chart their own destiny. The only thing that I will say is that the Indians are not the Aboriginal Indigenous people of this Continent, and that they do neither themselves nor us any good by pretending they are.
By the spring of 1996, Wub-e-ke-niew’s objections to Métis expropriation of Ahnishinahbæótjibway identity, property, and sovereignty was more strongly expressed: “the Métis, acting as Indians, don’t have a culture. They have a sub-culture of Western Civilization which was artificially created, and remains dependent on White projections, stereotypes, and financial support.” He continued,
Indian law, which they use, is nothing more than Roman and English law, and is not indigenous to this land. Indian sovereignty, which is presently a word much bandied about in the media, is a form of segregation. It is a hierarchical term out of Western European monarchies, applied to people like the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, who has charge of the Indians.
Wub-e-ke-niew was emphatic that social identity of the Indians is defined by the White man, and has been since the first European explorers started projecting their preconceptions onto the aboriginal people. Wub-e-ke-niew described “the Indian identity” as a “Human rights violation. It strips people of their dignity, and while a few of the in-group make money, the rest of them are stuck in a degrading and dehumanizing stereotype.” The people who have been defined as Indians have given up their real identity, and have taken on the projections of Western Civilization as their own, becoming, as Wub-e-ke-niew describes it, “a sacrificial goat.” The same process operates within the Negro, Black, and/or African-American community, and in the outcaste communities of South Asia. It involves displacement of characteristics that are seen by the dominant group as undesirable, and possibly as threatening to their social class structure and position, onto a subjugated scapegoat group.
At Red Lake, one can observe this process in action: People get into fights about who has more Indian blood quantum, and young men vie with each other to be the biggest “real Indian,” playing out what Wub-e-ke-niew called “Hollywood stereotypes … drinking or wearing feathers and pounding on a drum.” According to Wub-e-ke-niew, such public demonstrations of ‘Indian-ness’ have “nothing to do with the fundamental aboriginal values of keeping the ecosystem and the families intact.” He continued,
Calling the Indians the ‘first environmentalists’ and ‘ecologists’ is an oxymoron and an illusion—it is a big joke. The Indians were going around signing treaties and selling land so that it could be destroyed—I don’t call that ‘environmentalist.’ Now, the Indians at [Red Lake] are irresponsible hunters, shooting everything that moves, leaving the carcasses to rot. They shoot a bear just for its claws and its teeth, so that they can wear a necklace. The White Indians are vital to the clear-cutting being done here—they are part of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act under which the ecosystem is being destroyed. [Red Lake], which was once full of fish, is now empty and polluted. You don’t hear children laughing and swimming in the lake any more.
The really sad part about it is that they don’t speak the language. [Both at Red Lake and in the Cities,] schools have to teach the children how to be Indian. That’s pathetic. A culture should be learned in the home.
Beyond concepts of personal identity, cultural projections and stereotypes, the ultimate definer of the Indians at Red Lake is the United States government, which has authenticated and enrolled Indians for more than a hundred years, along with being, as Wub-e-ke-niew put it, “The Great White Father. Who fathered the Indians? The White man.” The United States government controls the official genealogies, the tribal enrollment process, and the definitions of ‘Indian’ under which federal funding can be obtained. The structure of the tribal council was created by the U.S. Congress under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, and tribal governments are subject to federal law, and the goals and policies of tribal councils are heavily influenced by the federal government not only through the B.I.A., but also by federal policies and priorities in creating the federal programs that are administred by tribal councils under the “Indian Self-Determination Act.” Wub-e-ke-niew pointedly described ‘Indian tribal government’: “They are European Tribal Councils,” and concurred with Indian activists, that the U.S. Government “controls everything from the womb to the tomb.”
A part of Wub-e-ke-niew’s point was that being a Federally Recognized Indian is a consequence of political, historical and bureaucratic processes, and has very little correlation with indigenous ancestry, community, cultural heritage, or values. And, as both the genealogies and nineteenth-century federal policy made clear, indigenous ancestry is not a requisite of being a “federally-recognized Indian.”
Although the kinship ties of the Métis may seem extensive in comparison to ‘middle-American’ whites for whom “family” is somewhat stereotypically “nuclear,” in cultural narratives equated with a married couple, 2.5 children and “companion animals.” From an Ahnishinahbæótjibway vantage, as Wub-e-ke-niew put it, “the basic social unit of the Métis, as with their White relatives, is the nuclear family.” He explained, “This is the opposite of the aboriginal extended familiesThe nuclear family consists of the mother and father, the children, and a dog and a cat. The Ahnishinahbæótjibway did not keep domesticated animals as pets, whereas the Métis and the Indians do, as a substitute in providing the love and affection of aboriginal indigenous peoples’ Dodems and extended family, which doesn’t exist in Western European culture.” He adds, “Dogs and cats—you can either love them or you can beat them. Your dog will never leave you even when you kick him.”
For contemporary ‘westerners,’ such nuclear families fit into the larger institutional contexts created by the Church, hierarchical political institutions, and, presently, multi-national corporations. Nuclear families do not have the stability and connectedness that aboriginal extended families do. As Wub-e-ke-niew describes Western nuclear families, “They are highly mobile, here one day and gone the next—no roots. To compensate for their rootlessness, they have all kinds of slogans, like, ‘This land is your land, this land is my land,’ and ‘God Bless America,’ which do not meet the needs of the people.” He adds, “How can a people treat the land they claim without respect, polluting it—this contradicts their slogans. They never took care of the land that they came from—how can you expect them to take care of this land here? Their heritage shows what they have done to the land, but their people can’t see it. It’s invisible in their culture.”
Wub-e-ke-niew describes the nuclear family structure of Western Civilization as failing to provide for the fundamental human needs of “Love, affection and affiliation... the female has an inherent, normal and natural instinct for building an extended family, and she is disrupted and thwarted by the Western patriarchy from making her nest. There is no language and no grammar to help her create a stable society.” He adds, “Witch-burning is one example of Western attitudes toward women. Not passing the Equal Rights Amendment is another one.”
Wub-e-ke-niew felt strongly that the following quotation from Senator Dawes, who was also author of the General Allotment Act, clarifies the relationships between Métis and Ahnishinahbæótjibway:
The census will, I think, reveal some startling facts in regard to the Indians. We have been under the impression for the last twenty-five years that the Indian has been increasing. That, I think, will appear not to be true for the last ten years. The aggregate will fall, I am informed, considerably short of what it was in 1880. The loss is mostly confined to the full bloods. Mixed bloods hold their own better, and are increasing in this land.
The Indian people will not remain as a separate race among us, as the black race must. The figures show where he is going. He is to disappear in the midst of our population, be absorbed in it, and be one of us and fade out of sight as an Indian. So you must administer the Indian Bureau with that in mind. ... Their blood, their sinew, their strength are needed, and will help us.
“Violence and macho behavior are hallmarks of Métis culture at Red Lake,” Wub-e-ke-niew explained. “Indian men have to play that game, because the English language is a homosexual language, and they are always struggling with the dichotomy of homosexuality and homophobia embedded in the English language. Violence is also a part of their language, which molds their behavior. Violence was a part of European society when the people who became Indians left Europe. The Ahnishinahbæótjibway were non-violent, and the Western Europeans needed a violent people so that they could say that they took the land ‘fair and square,’ rather than ‘taking candy from a baby.’ Violence is a necessary part of their paradigm of war-and-peace in their historical process of expansion.”
“There is a thread in Indian culture of ‘stabbing in the back.’ This is a White projection, which has been internalized by many of those living out the Indian identity. Through a process of definition by the Anglo-American elite, Indian culture has been molded to embody kinds of behavior which post facto justify European colonization and destruction of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway culture.”
“Indians’ society is male-oriented, replete with images of Indian Warriors, and a war-centered culture complex,” although according to Ahnishinahbæótjibway elders, this did not have anything to do with aboriginal culture. Wub-e-ke-niew adds, “The female does not have much to say in the Indian community. She is not on the tribal council, although she is allowed to become the matriarch of her matriline. As among any conquered people, when the White man mates with her, her offspring are Indian, but the female does not really have any power. The White man is trying to pacify the woman because of the rape and humiliation, so he gave her the power to keep her offspring as Indians, rather than making them White. The White man is walking away from his bloodline, and he retains no connection to it. If he didn’t pacify the women by saying that their children could be Indian, there would really be an outcry.”
Some of the cultural traits that the Métis describe as being archetypical of their Indian culture, for example beadwork, are explicitly derived from the fur trade, and reflect values that are antithetical to the Ahnishinahbæótjibway.
Wub-e-ke-niew comments, “The White man could have written the truth about the aboriginal indigenous people, instead of trying to create their own race, their own mythologies... instead of saying ‘We’re God, we can make this happen.’ But, they’re not God, and they can’t make it happen.” He also observes, “When the anthropologists study the Indians, they’re really studying themselves. They can’t go beyond the ‘glass wall’ created by their language.”
The center of Ahnishinahbæótjibway society was the network of extended family through the Dodems, and the Dodem and between-Dodems-through-women inter-relationships were the primary archetypes of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway culture and world-view. Connection expressed in terms of kinship was a crucial part of the deep structure of this aboriginal society. Harmony and non-violence were among the core values of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway; the focus was on creating and maintaining harmony not only within the human community but also with the natural world, living in a sustainable way with all of the environment. Non-violence, what Wub-e-ke-niew terms “respect,” and cooperation are corollaries of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway all-things-are-connected perceptive reality/world-view, and are consistent with the overall patterns of indigenous culture.
The Métis economy and relationship to the ecosystem at Red Lake is based on resource extraction, and has always been tied into Western European mercantile expansion onto this Continent. Their language and culture do not provide them with readily accessible patterns toward either the Ahnishinahbæótjibway values of harmonious relationship with the interconnected life of the aboriginal forests, nor easily generate the aboriginal cultural algorithms that maintained the ecosystem as the abundant paradise described by both the Ahnishinahbæótjibway and early White explorers.
Métis origins are inseparable from their role as commercial hunters for the fur trade. As a consequence of that European resource-extraction business, in many areas the fur-bearing animals were hunted nearly to extinction and the ecology was damaged, sometimes quite severely. The beaver population was often destroyed to the point that flooding and often devastating erosion occurred, in turn damaging fish and waterfowl populations, as well as nearly obliterating the plant communities and habitat associated with beaver ponds or protected by their dams.
After the fur trade ceased to be lucrative because the beaver, mink, and other fur-bearing animals had been “hunted out,” and because of changes in colonial policy (e.g. the British army ceased subsidizing the fur trade through beaver hats being a part of their military uniforms), one of the mainstays of Indian subsistence at Red Lake and in northern Minnesota was ‘working in the woods,’ i.e., logging. From an Ahnishinahbæótjibway perspective, this was a clear-cut case of destroying the ecological capital and infrastructure that these aboriginal people had deliberately maintained for millennia.
As Wub-e-ke-niew puts it, the forests were “food, clothing and shelter for the indigenous people. The White man and his Indians destroy the forests for paper money, so that they can buy food, clothing and shelter, which doesn’t help any human being. And, what about all of the animals that live there—what they’re doing doesn’t help them, either.”
Métis understanding of the land is not the same as the Ahnishinahbæótjibway, and it is worth noting that most of the so-called “Indian names” on the maps in the State of Minnesota are not aboriginal place names, but creole descriptive names: “Minne[water]-ha-ha[laughing],” “Lightening-Water [Whisky] River,” “Town,” etc. These are not the kinds of indigenous names that people who have lived in the same place for millennia have. They are not Ahnishinahbæótjibway names, reflecting a deep and multi-dimensional inter-relationship with specific places on the land over countless millennia. This is not merely a matter of cultural orientation, but also reflections descriptions-of-place of people who were relative strangers.
A degree of transhumant subsistence along traveling by water, gardening, hunting and fishing were rational and efficient responses to the environment prior to the mid-twentieth century, and Whites as well as Métis and Ahnishinahbæótjibway engaged in these activities. The crucial difference is that the Ahnishinahbæótjibway were deeply aware of their ecological capital and nurtured rather than exploited it.
The Métis used plants for medicine and crafts, and so did their European cousins. But, in the ethnographies written using information from Métis and other Indian ‘informants’ by anthropologists including Frances Densmore and W.J. Hoffman, European plants are frequently recorded, instead of plants indigenous to this continent that have similar medicinal properties. The plant names recorded by those authors are, like “Indian” place-names, descriptive rather than chronologically deep.
The aboriginal indigenous language, Dodem structure and world-view had as their core value harmony both within the human community and with the natural environment. The basis of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway economy was a carefully maintained permacultural ecological base, including: mahnomen, maple sugar, gardens, hunting, nuts and berries, and fishing. Rather than viewing the environment as an agglomeration of resources to be developed, exploited and sold, the indigenous people cherished the forests—for example referring to small maple trees as “my children.” Living lightly on the land was stressed: taking only what is needed, leaving more than is taken. When picking berries, for example, the Ahnishinahbæótjibway deliberately and explicitly leave some for the “bears and the birds.”
Similarly, there was a cultural ethic of respect for the animals we hunted, rather than “shooting everything that moves,” as Ahnishinahbæótjibway have said that some Métis do. Ahnishinahbæótjibway admired the magnificent deer-elders that a longtime hunter may be so fortunate as to meet in the forest, rather than killing them. In the aboriginal understanding of hunting the purpose was taking what food one needed, not sport or ‘trophies.’
Wub-e-ke-niew pointedly observed, “Catch-and-release is considered a sport by Westerners. That’s disgusting, what they’re doing, but they don’t see anything wrong with it.” In Ahnishinahbæótjibway paradigms, one does not kill anything without need, and would not torment a fish for recreation.
Aboriginal Indigenous people contrast our own perspective with, for example, United States Government forestry personnel advising, “kill porcupines when you see them, because they ruin the pines.” Wub-e-ke-niew told one such forester that it was the White people who were ruining the forest by cutting down the trees. Ahnishinahbæótjibway have a cultural emphasis on harmony, seeing the patterns of interaction, and attending to all of the small details of the forest ecology... of respecting and caring about even the black flies and mosquitoes. As Wub-e-ke-niew wrote, “Destroying the forests is beyond the bounds of thinkable thought, in my language.”
Ahnishinahbæótjibway culture is internally consistent in its conscious harmony with the natural environment, and thus structured in a quite different way than the cultural and linguistic predicates influencing European and associated Métis relationships to the environment. Ahnishinahbæótjibway are totally at ease in the forests, in harmony with the natural environment, and, as Wub-e-ke-niew put it, “do not get lost in the woods like those Indians.”
The crux of Ahnishinahbæótjibway relationships with the environment: in living harmony, in continuous and conscious interrelationship since the very beginning of aboriginal time. As Wub-e-ke-niew said, “When I pick up a handful of earth, I am holding the bones of my ancestors. My roots grow deep here, they grow deep.” There is no boundary in aboriginal understanding, between one’s self, the ecosystem, and the earth herself. Wub-e-ke-niew adds, “The Indian can’t do that [touch their ancestral earth at Red Lake]. The European can’t do that either.”
Métis culture developed in close interaction with the Europeans who engendered them, and reflects historical client-patron relationships with fur companies. Interaction with European-derived social and economic systems formed Métis’ identities and status in those colonial contexts. Through the centuries that the fur trade continued in commercial operation, the Métis remained embedded in the fur trade panoply of sub-cultures, and depended on the trading posts for what became physical and cultural necessities of life.
It is clear from genealogies that there were consistent patterns, at least from the eighteenth century onwards, of women ‘marrying up’ – ‘whiter’ – in the ‘racially’-gradated caste system that developed in the context of the fur trade, as men married ‘down’ – in fur trade contexts, meaning women who were more ‘Indian’ than they were. A detailed analysis of Métis social structure and racialized caste systems is beyond the scope of this paper, however the systematic elimination of indigenous patrilines - Ahnishinahbæótjibway Dodems – in conjunction with those Métis marriage patterns, is relevant.
Early in their history, Métis had clear allegiances to specific European groups, fighting in the numerous fur-trade conflicts and wars for their White pater-figures. Part of definition of self was in terms of such loyalties to the British, the French, or ‘the Americans,’ and many of the nineteenth-century Métis “Indian names” recorded as a part of ‘Indian treaties’ and annuity payrolls denote identities like “American Fox,” “British-Canadian,” and “Red Coat.”
Contemporary Indians continue to define themselves in terms of Western concepts, sometimes fighting with each other over the details of that externally imposed segmentation, like allegiance to a specific Indian reservation describing that post-colonial concentration camp as an ‘Indian nation.’ There is an internalization of White stereotypes on both the positive and negative sides of this Western dichotomy: striving to be an “Indian medicine man” with a red-painted pole by the highway; loading one’s self down with pan-Indian beadwork, hair-pipe chokers and turquoise on the “positive” side, and in the apparent conflation of “negative” and “real Indian”: pooling pocket change with other chronic alcoholics to buy one more bottle of “Wild Eye” in the sometimes-explicit apprehension that to “sober up and get a job” is “selling out,” and making them “less Indian.”
The European feudal roots and centuries of colonial development of Métis and contemporary Indian client-cultures could be, I think, an interesting topic for further study. How do the these definitions from the dominating society become internalized, lived out with conviction, and defended as being “real” Indian, Black or even female?
One example of this process was the formation of images, with the consensus of both the Indian and White communities, of a “Radical Indian” identity. Wub-e-ke-niew describes how, during the early years of the American Indian Movement, certain A.I.M. ‘leaders’ interacted with media to come to a mutual image of what a “radical Indian leader” was supposed to be like:
When I quit driving truck and helped found the American Indian Movement to work for social change, I left my truck driver identity and took on the White Indian identity of a militant, dressed in cowboy boots, a cowboy hat, an Indian bandanna, blue jeans, dark glasses, headband and long braids. Since Indian is a mythological identity, we initially took our cues from Hollywood. The news media defined us, a process of interaction in which the people who fit the White media’s preconceptions of what a Real Indian was supposed to be were the ones featured on the news. We wanna-be’s played back into the stereotype, adopting the images in the media. The original goals of A.I.M. got lost in the abstract.
Images of ‘radical’ and ‘militant’ Indians developed fairly quickly and were widely dispersed by the media, particularly during A.I.M. occupation of Wounded Knee and subsequent protests, and are recognized as such by both Indians and Whites. One young Ahnishinahbæótjibway told me in 1996 that he had his hair cut quite short because he was tired of the hassles and “slammed doors” resulting from any resemblance in his appearance to the militant Indian archetype.
The inter-relationship between the Whites and those whom they have defined as ‘Indians’ is an ongoing dynamic, with the people living out the Indian identity caught as proxies in Western Civilization’s struggle to come to terms with (and avoid confronting) their history on this continent. As Wub-e-ke-niew put it, the Whites “don’t want to let go of their Indians, but they don’t know anything about the Aboriginal people.”
Ahnishinahbæótjibway remain outside of the Western paradigm. In our understanding of history, many of the environmentally devastating practices (hunting into scarcity, damming rivers and destroying wetlands, clear-cutting and the subsequent degradation of lakes and fisheries) of the Euroamerica have been deliberately intended to destroy Ahnishinahbæótjibway permacultural subsistence base and indigenous food supply, and to force indigenous people into the Western market economy. Wub-e-ke-niew pointed to hundreds of old-growth sugar-maple trees which were cut down “by Indians working for the White man” in the late 1950’s, and left laying on the ground to rot,” and explained “they wanted to destroy our permaculture and bring us into their economic system—make us eat their store-food, so we’d get sick and have to go to the doctor, and buy medicine... everything they do is about making money.” He added, “They’re like a spider, trying to draw us into their web.”
Although both the community structure and the ecological infrastructure have been devastated, and of necessity almost all aboriginal people participate at least marginally in the Western global economy, Ahnishinahbæótjibway have retained our sense of self outside the Western paradigm. An aboriginal person draws self-definition from within one’s own culture and from the Dodems, and does not need recognition or affirmation from the colonizer - in either positive or negative ways.
Indigenous elder Chris Spotted Eagle explained:
What's more and most important is to believe in yourself, to enhance self reliance, trust yourself and not concern what I and others may think. ... State the positive, take a position with no regrets. ... Do not look for approval or hope to hear compliments and approval from others. If it happens, it happens.
Some linguists have gotten angry at the suggestion that the Ahnishinahbæótjibway language is different than the Chippewa language taught at universities, arguing vigorously that nobody has the prerogative to question the authenticity of their Indians. Such a position is consistent with the historical and structural White-Indian dyad in Euro-American culture. There is an embedded political agenda: if the Indians are the “real” aboriginal people of this continent, then:
a) the Euro-Americans need not confront such deeply troubling questions as near-total genocide;
b) the lucrative institutional structure of Indian Studies Departments, Bureau of Indian Affairs bureaucracies and professional Indians remains intact;
c) Euro-Americans need not expand their paradigm to include the possibility of aboriginal people here who were non-violent, egalitarian, and outside of Western parameters of reality;
d) Euroamerica is spared the devastating collective guilt of having deliberately annihilated non-violent people; and
e) denying the existence of egalitarian indigenous people like the Ahnishinahbæótjibway enables avoid the inherent threat which egalitarian people pose to the hierarchies of Western Civilization. As Wub-e-ke-niew explained it, “The United States does not want to admit to the whole world that they committed genocide and land theft on a grand scale here on my aboriginal land. It’s a pretty clever scheme.”
The few Ahnishinahbæótjibway who still spoke the old language in the mid-1990s, stated with conviction that their language is different than Chippewa. As Wub-e-ke-niew put it in We Have The Right To Exist,
Chippewa is a hierarchical Creole language, a hybrid language of the French Métis, which was worked over into a Christian language by the missionaries. The book which is mislabeled A Dictionary of the Ojibway Language is really a Chippewa dictionary, and has the tracks of missionaries all over it. Their pious linguistic and social engineering was intentional. ... Chippewa began as a barter and trade pidgin, used by the Europeans and Métis, and became a language of colonizers, commercial hunters and trappers, and fur traders. Its structure reflects its French feudal and mercantile heritage, overlaid by the work of Baraga and his colleagues. Chippewa has never been an Aboriginal Indigenous language.
Métis writer Ignatia Brokerconcured with Wub-e-ke-niew when she described the languages commonly spoken on White Earth Reservation in the late 1800’s as “three tongues — the English, the language of the voyageurs [Chippewa], and the good Ojibway.”
The deep structure of the Chippewa [/Ojibwe/Anishinaabeg] language is hierarchical, with the inherent assumption of the possibility of controlling relationships with the world. According to people who understand both languages, the Chippewa [/Ojibwe/Anishinaabeg] language is “like English in structure. It is a different language than the Ahnishinahbæótjibway language—it is all White.”
Ahnishinahbæótjibway language is in a different space-time and a different set of dimensions than either English or Chippewa. Wub-e-ke-niew addressed it at length in We Have The Right To Exist:
Ahnishinahbæótjibway language is more than words. It is the totality of communication in several dimensions of reality. Our language is in living time with Grandmother Earth, rather than in a mechanical and abstract time. ... Aboriginal Indigenous languages are the living past and present, embodying the values, the consensus harmony, and the meaning of life and death of those peoples whose ancient heritage these language are. ... The Ahnishinahbæótjibway language is balanced, both male and female, non-violent, egalitarian. ... It is a powerful tool for understanding the world, a guide for our behavior, and an interpretation of our harmonious inter-relationship with Grandmother Earth and Grandfather Midé. Ahnishinahbæótjibway contains our eloquent oral history, our social structure expressed in terms of Dodems and family, and our holistic and balanced relationship to the universe. When a person fully understands another language, they also can see into the heart, mind and spirit of its native speakers.
The Ahnishinahbæótjibway language, unlike the Chippewa or Ojibwe language, is egalitarian, anti-hierarchical, and non-violent. It does not have intrinsically non-harmonious subject-verb-object grammar, and its deep structure provides its native speakers with a blueprint for a non-controlling, non-violent and harmonious relationship to the universe. Wub-e-ke-niew stressed that,
Ahnishinahbæótjibway is both a male and a female language—at least that’s how it can be interpreted in human terms. We are making this comparison because the Western European languages are hierarchical male languages, which have all of their pathological man-made emotions and behaviors embedded in them, especially anger and violence. Anger and hate and violence are juvenile emotions and behaviors that manipulate people through their languages, and prevent their becoming adults. When you look at the White man’s writing, it always focuses on the youth, and they never ask the advice of the elders—they warehouse those people and alienate them—they throw them away. By keeping people ‘youthful,’ they enable them to be irresponsible, and simultaneously take away their identity and their self-esteem.
Western Civilization domesticates their people in the same way as they domesticate cattle, and dog obedience school and Head Start are equivalent. They keep telling their subject people, over and over again, ‘You are Free,’ but they are trapped with that language, and are not free—as long as one’s only language is a Western European language, they are a prisoner of that language.
The White man’s languages have no balance. As Indian Activist Russell Means would say, ‘I will fight no more forever.’ He would wake up in the middle of the night and holler, ‘Hoka Hey! It’s a good day to die!’ But it was still night out—he was using crooked English.”
According to Wub-e-ke-niew, Means did not ever proclaim that it was “a good day to die” in the daytime.
In We Have The Right To Exist, Wub-e-ke-niew wrote that “The Ahnishinahbæótjibway religious and philosophical tradition, the Midé, is holistic—there is no compartmentalization between religion, economics, science, philosophy, and politics.”
The processes of stretching reality into dichotomies, and of disconnecting from the real world and retreating into an artificial abstract, which in Western tradition translate into concepts of God and the Devil, were not a part of this aboriginal tradition. There was a seamless interconnection with all aspects of life; no separation between the sacred and the profane. There remains on the Ahnishinahbæótjibway land at Red Lake a palpable presence of those who are no longer in the embodied condition which Westerners call “living,” and two-way communication with one’s deceased ancestors is taken as a matter of course among the aboriginal people.
In congruence with the egalitarian deep structure of the Ahnishinahbæótjibway way of being, there was no “worship” in a hierarchical Christian sense, but rather respect and awareness of the connectedness of all things. Wub-e-ke-niew summarizes, “It was an ideology and a philosophy that we lived here, if you want to call it a ‘religion,’ that’s O.K. The spirituality was a part of the Dodem and the extended family ... it’s hard to explain in English.”
Wub-e-ke-niew addressed Ahnishinahbæótjibway religion and spirituality at length in We Have The Right To Exist.
From an Ahnishinahbæótjibway vantage, the ‘Indian religions’ practiced by the Métis at Red Lake: cults centered around charismatic Indian Medicine Men, the Chippewa Midewiwin, the Peyote cult, and revival Pentecostal – all extensions of Christianity, the last two explicitly so. In the first two, the Indian Medicine Man and the ‘Shaman’ are equivalent to a Christian priest, according to Wub-e-ke-niew, who says, “Indian religions are hierarchical religions, and have good and evil in them. When they talk about the Great Spirit, they are referring to the Christian God and the Christian’s Devil. They are caught in the dichotomies that are a part of Western Civilization.” It is worth observing in this context that the Indian-language words referring to “The Great Spirit” are compound words, e.g. Gitchi Manido and Wakan Tanka—and that compound words for such crucial core concepts as “God” in an ancient and purportedly deistic culture are unlikely.
The modern charismatic Medicine Man ‘Indian Religion’ has the structure (and all of the problems of) Christian cults. According to Wub-e-ke-niew, this Indian Religion became popular just after the Indian Freedom of Religion Act was passed in 1978. He and two other Ahnishinahbæótjibway (with the observation that, “we are speaking in harmony”) added the following commentary to one of my academic papers written in the Spring of 1997:
Prior to 1978, Indian Religion was outlawed by 19th-century U.S. statutes enacted because the Indian was supposed to exterminated or acculturated into Judeo-Christianity. The irony is that the modern Indian Religion is no different than any other sect of Christianity. It comes out of the same kind of thinking demonstrated by the Catholic priest at [Red Lake] who wanted to put beaded buckskins at the Stations of the Cross and hold sweat-lodges.
What your natural body needs is family and love, and neither mainstream Christianity nor Indian Religion meets those needs. So, people keep on searching. You see all kinds of people coming to the Reservation, looking for Indian religion. What they are really looking for, is the extended family and love that are missing in their culture. They hope that they will find it in another religion, but with a nuclear family they will never find it. They will also never find it in their religions (which destroyed the extended family to gain power), because hierarchical religions are ultimately about control, not about spirituality or connection. Only in Hollywood do these people find a happy ending.
The Pilgrims said they were looking for ‘Freedom of Religion,’ but that was just an excuse while they plundered the land. The way the White man and his Indian use it, religion is merely a justification for abuse and a con job—it shouldn’t even be in a culture. You could do away with these man-made religions. They don’t make you a better person, and the way they wrecked everything here in the name of ‘God’ isn’t a very good recommendation for Christianity.
Religion is useless; it has no value, unless of course there’s an agenda of control and manipulation. Their abstract dichotomy of good and evil does not allow things to be what they are, but distorts and perverts them into fallacies and delusions created by the culture—they live out the status quo’s fantasies and projections onto scapegoats. Their religion does not allow people to see things for what they are—they have to place value judgments on anything and everything they come across. This way of thinking disconnects them from seeing anything that’s real. It’s like any kind of rigid hierarchical thinking—people see it as the ‘gospel truth,’ and they don’t know how to get out of it, they’re trapped by the words in their head. They can’t get out of their language partly because they’re afraid of the bogeymen they have created at the boundaries of their paradigm. The more they get hurt by their exploitive abstract paradigms, the more they cling to them, reacting violently and even killing people over them. If you were to get rid of Religion, Capitalism, Communism and Democracy, it would be a great advance in the culture of the White man. People might say, ‘there will be chaos’—but things are already chaos, and will remain that way until they start treating each other as human beings. As a matter of fact, the Western hierarchies need chaos in order to govern—look at the banana republics in South America: as soon as things start to become stable, the patriarchy gets frightened because they’re going to lose their power. So, they use military force to keep their power, and go into their banana republic to create more chaos by starting a revolution. On a more local level, people in Euro-American cities don’t know their own neighbors, and instead of community they have drive-by shootings. They are caught in an endless, violent cycle of war-and-peace—and their language and religion keeps them stuck there.
Religion is a means of diverting hierarchical people who are seeking to fill the wordless emptiness inside them. They know that they have some kind of natural need, and they look at religion, but religion is not helping—it cannot help them. Indian religion is a dead end. People are attracted by the mystique of the unknown, by the ceremony, by the ‘sacredness’ that they project onto it. They are lazy people looking for a ‘get well quick’ scheme. Sweat lodges are a part of that illusion, as well as all of the chanting that goes with it. They cannot find what they are really looking for in Indian religion, because it isn’t in there—but the Indians keep the Whites from getting too close to the Indian religion, and maintain the effectiveness of this blind alley. They use the mystique that the Whites are projecting onto them, and keep the White people at such a distance that the illusion is preserved. This is one of several kinds of abuse practiced by Indians in the context of Indian Religion. Indian Medicine men keep getting thrown in jail for molesting their clients. How many medicine men at [Red Lake] have gone to jail for sexual abuse? Most of it’s all hushed up. (God, I’m glad I’m not a medicine man!) What about the priests and ministers who do the same thing? That’s all hushed up, too.
Indian religion is only useful to the patriarchy if the Whites are kept at the fringes of it—it’s designed to be an attractive mirage. If the Indians welcomed all of the White people who want to be a part of Indian Religion, then the United States government would break it up the same way as they broke up the Branch Davidians.
Indian religion is a con job, maintaining the mystique of the Indians and using it to hide the genocide and the grand land theft committed by the Western European immigrants on this continent. Indian Religion is playing the White man’s guilt to the hilt, but they are also doing a favor for the White hierarchy, by sending people off down the ‘Red Road.’ Spirituality is something that each individual is born with, but religion is something that is ‘given’ (or imposed) on people—and Western European religions prevent people from understanding their own spirituality. Organized religion keeps people in a juvenile condition, dehumanizes people and numbs them to their own spirituality. It also breaks the spirit of people who think for themselves, creates an illusion of ‘belonging,’ and diverts people into a labyrinth of abstract dogma, unresolvable metaphysics and intellectual denial. That’s why people in this country are not free. The way that the Western Civilization dehumanizes people is terrible—it’s been going on for centuries and it’s going to get worse. The resources are going the way of the dinosaurs, and they’re running out of lebensraum.
The Indian religion is not in harmony, and it’s out of balance. We are debunking the Indian mythology, which has been attributed to the Ahnishinahbæótjibway for long enough. We Ahnishinahbæótjibway of the Dodems don’t want to take the blame for what the Indians are doing any more. We know what’s going on—we didn’t fall off the turnip wagon yesterday.
 Wub-e-ke-niew, We Have The Right To Exist, pp. 86-96
 Peterson, J. 1978. “Prelude to Red River: a Social Portrait of the Great Lakes Métis.” In Ethnohistory 25:1, Winter 1978, page 45
 Peterson, J. Op cit. 1978, page 51.
 Peterson, J. Op cit. 1978, page 48.
 We Have The Right To Exist, Op cit., pages 16ff.
 Warren, William W. 1885 [written in 1852]. History of the Ojibway People. Minnesota Historical Society Press reprint, 1984, page 76.
 Warren, Op cit., page 126.
 Wheeler-Voegelin, E. and Hickerson, H. 1974. Indian Claims Commission Findings, reproduced as the Garland American Indian Ethnohistory Series, Chippewa Indians I, The Red Lake and Pembina Chippewa. Garland, page 63, citing Tanner, John; Edwin James. An Indian Captivity (1789 – 1822). John Tanner’s narrative of his captivity among the Ottawa and Ojibwa Indians, 1940. San Francisco, pages 203-207.
 Wheeler-Vogelin and Hickerson, Ibid, p. 59-70, quoting Tanner, p. 227.
 Wub-e-ke-niew, We Have The Right To Exist, op cit., p. 24.
 We Have The Right To Exist, op cit., pages 41, 48-9.
 Dianna Mortenson’s genealogy of the Leith family, personal communication with author.
 We Have The Right To Exist, op cit., page 6.
 Ibid, p. 194.
 Ibid, .p.12.
 Sale, Kirkpatrick. The Conquest of Paradise, Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy. Knopf. 1990, page 61.
 Letter to Minneapolis StarTribune writer Jim Dawson, October 5, 1992. http://www.maquah.net/AhnishinahbaeotjibwayReflections/1992/1992-10-05_Strib_commentary.html, accessed September 13, 2004.
 Broker, Ignatia 1983. Night Flying Woman. Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1983, page 21.
 Fruth, Alban. O.S.B. 1958. A Century of Missionary Work among the Chippewa Indians. Red Lake, Minnesota, page 15.
 E.g., Garrett, P. Speech, October 12, 1886. In Proceedings of the Lake Mohonk Conference of Friends of the Indian, published transcripts.
 Wub-e-ke-niew collaborated with my academic coursework prior to his death, and I often included his verbatim comments in my papers. Wub-e-ke-niew’s otherwise unattributed comments are those he made in the context of my academic work, 1996-1997.
 Bergeron, L. 1971. The History of Quebec, a Patriote’s Handbook. Quebec.
 http://www.ojibwe.info/: Ahnishinahbæótjibway, Ojibwe, and Métis genealogy, focusing on Red Lake Indian Reservation, 1889 - 1938compiled 1984 – 1997, by Wub-e-ke-niew and Clara NiiSka, http://www.ojibwe.info/RedLake/HTML/surnames.html, accessed September 24, 2004; and Ahnishinahbæótjibway, Ojibwe, and Métis genealogy, focusing on Red Lake and White Earth Indian reservations, compiled 1984 – 1997, by Wub-e-ke-niew and Clara. http://www.ojibwe.info/Ojibwe/HTML/surnames.htm, accessed September 24, 2004.
 Faries, H. 1805. In Gates, C., ed. 1965. Five Fur Traders of the Northwest. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul, page 240.
 See Wub-e-ke-niew, Ahnishinahbæótjibway Dodems, February 11, 1996. Online at http://www.maquah.net/AhnishinahbaeotjibwayReflections/1996/1996-02-11_Ahnishinahaeotjibway_Dodems.html, accessed September 14, 2004
Ahnishinahbæótjibway favored marrying from outside of the local community; the women coming from across the continent to live with their husbands’ Dodem and people. Ahnishinahbæótjibway are and have always been exogamous, meaning that we do not marry anyone to whom we are related; and we defined relatives as anyone of the same Dodem, or otherwise related by blood through seven generations... grandparents’ (two generations) grandparents’ (four generations) great-grandparents, and all of their descendants are blood relatives—and we knew who all of these thousands of relatives were. This huge network of relatives created a vast “social security” safety net; a loving family extending thousands of miles in all directions; more than ten thousand brothers and sisters with whom any kind of sexual relationship was unthinkable and unimaginable, and therefore with whom we interacted in ways not readily understood in the sexually-permeated Western society.
 Quimby, G. 1960. Indians in the Upper Great Lakes Region. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, p. 151
 Peterson, J. 1978. Prelude to Red River: a Social Portrait of the Great Lakes Métis. In Ethnohistory 25:1, Winter 1978, page 56.
 E.g., column in the Native American Press/Ojibwe News, October 3, 1990 [continued on October 17, 1990], online at http://www.maquah.net/AhnishinahbaeotjibwayReflections/AppendixII/1990-10-13_Wub-e-ke-niew_column.html, accessed September 14, 2004.
 From the homepage of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, “The Red Lake Nation Logo. The clan symbols from the left are the bear, turtle, bullhead (fish), mink, eagle, pine marten (sable) and the kingfisher. Seven clans representing the main clans of the people of the Red Lake Reservation.” http://www.redlakenation.org/, accessed September 14, 2004.
 Wub-e-ke-niew, statement in 1996.
 Landes, Ruth. 1937. Ojibwa Sociology. Columbia., pages 18 ff., esp. Maggie Spence and Will Rogers.
 Wub-e-ke-niew, “The Ahnishinahbæótjibway Dodems,” February 11, 1996 (unpublished), online at http://www.maquah.net/AhnishinahbaeotjibwayReflections/1996/1996-02-11_Ahnishinahaeotjibway_Dodems.html, accessed October 20, 2004.
 Online at http://www.ojibwe.info/, accessed October 20, 2004.
 We Have The Right To Exist, p. xlvii. The publication date on We Have The Right To Exist is 1995. Like most published books, the publisher’s final edit, layout, and book production took several months, and Wub-e-ke-niew’s final draft of the book was written in 1993 -1994.
 P.L. 93-638.
 E.g., “1910 letter questions how W.E. Natives establish blood quantum,” letter from Thomas E. Harper, Special [Indian] Agent, to Hon. E.H. Long, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Detroit Lakes, MN, [on allotment], quoted in We Have The Right To Exist, p. 128; http://www.maquah.net/AhnishinahbaeotjibwayReflections/1993/1993-02-05a_White_Earth_blood_quantum.html; Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to the Secretary of the Interior for the year 1871, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1872, page 243 [on issuance of “halfbreed scrip” to white men], quoted in We Have The Right To Exist, p. 52; http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_13-Chapter04.html, accessed September 26, 2004.
 Dawes, Senator. 1890. Speech in Proceedings of the Lake Mohonk Conference of Friends of the Indian, published transcripts, p. 84.
 Densmore, Frances ( 1974). How Indians Use Wild Plants for Food, Medicine, and Crafts. Dover reprint.
 Hoffman, W.J. 1891. The Mide’wiwin or ‘Grand Medicine Society’ of the Ojibway [sic]. In Bureau of American Ethnology, Seventh Annual Report. Washington, D.C., some of article online at http://www.gbl.indiana.edu/archives/miamis/md7.html, accessed October 21, 2004.
 C.f., “Is the Star Tribune into propaganda?,” May 30, 1989, http://www.maquah.net/AhnishinahbaeotjibwayReflections/AppendixII/1989-05-30_Strib_propaganda.html, accessed October 21, 2004:
the White establishment’s “management” of Indian resources includes the scorched-earth slaughter of millions of buffalo and billions of passenger pigeons; it also includes depriving Indian children of the right to eat their own fish so that upper-class “sportsmen” can aggrandize their own egos with stuffed fish on their walls and so that White-owned resorts can make money with fish-tormenting contests, “catch-and-release.”
 We Have The Right To Exist, op cit, p. 235.
 We Have The Right To Exist, op. cit, p. 232.
 Beginning in late February 1973 and lasting about seventy-one days. According to Tamara Highfill, the “nearly 1200 arrests” at the end of the “siege at Wounded Knee … would only mark the beginning of what was known as the ‘reign of Terror’ instigated by the F.B.I. and B.I.A. During the three years following Wounded Knee,” sixty-four members were killed in unsolved murders, “300 harassed and beaten, and 562 arrests were made, and of these only 15 people were convicted of any crime.” PageWise, 2002, http://tn.essortment.com/siegewoundedkn_rmpq.htm, accessed October 21, 2004.
 Chris Spotted Eagle, September 20, 2004.
 We Have The Right To Exist, ibid, p. 234.
 Night Flying Woman, Minnesota Historical Society, 1983, p. 86.
 We Have The Right To Exist, ibid, p. 215-16.
 Ibid, p. 195.