'People of Color' Term is Already Running into Trouble

[Parasaurolophus]

But if an indigenous woman adopts a non-indigenous child, she still can't pass on her status. so the historical injustice is actually perpetuated in a slightly modified context. (Adoption can hardly be considered an unusual circumstance. And since indigenous communities are generally small, adoptions from outside should not be surprising.)

Right: the problem that I'm seeing is a situation in which non-indigenous adoptees count as indigenous, and the men are then eligible to pass that status on to their own descendants, while at the same time status is denied to the children of indigenous mothers (with a non-indigenous father). Multiplied across time, you could conceivably wind up with a significant number of people who count as indigenous despite having no direct causal tie to indigenous ancestry, while a signicant number of people who do have that tie lack status.

Personally, I'm not especially worried about that kind of situation, since it seems fairly far removed, and fairly distant from the particulars of this case. But I can understand why a national minority might worry about that kind of thing, especially given a history of government policies (including the 'Indian status' components of the Indian Act) aimed at precisely that kind of dilution and erasure of their people and culture. There's a reason the government has resisted allowing women to pass on their status for so long, after all.

But, for the record, indigenous women can now pass on their status.

[marshwiggle]

But if an indigenous woman adopts a non-indigenous child, she still can't pass on her status. so the historical injustice is actually perpetuated in a slightly modified context. (Adoption can hardly be considered an unusual circumstance. And since indigenous communities are generally small, adoptions from outside should not be surprising.)

Right: the problem that I'm seeing is a situation in which non-indigenous adoptees count as indigenous, and the men are then eligible to pass that status on to their own descendants, while at the same time status is denied to the children of indigenous mothers (with a non-indigenous father). Multiplied across time, you could conceivably wind up with a significant number of people who count as indigenous despite having no direct causal tie to indigenous ancestry, while a signicant number of people who do have that tie lack status.

Personally, I'm not especially worried about that kind of situation, since it seems fairly far removed, and fairly distant from the particulars of this case. But I can understand why a national minority might worry about that kind of thing, especially given a history of government policies (including the 'Indian status' components of the Indian Act) aimed at precisely that kind of dilution and erasure of their people and culture. There's a reason the government has resisted allowing women to pass on their status for so long, after all.

But, for the record, indigenous women can now pass on their status.

Except, apparently, in the case of adoption. (Yes, I was aware of the legislation you mentioned. And while it was discriminatory, I think it was at least partly related to who was likely to live on a reservation. Women (indigenous or not) would tend to live in their husbands' communities, whether that was on- or off-reservation. If services on reservations were to be restricted to people living on those reservations, then "status" was basically just an indicator of who could access services. As a side question does anyone know if people who have indigenous status can claim that status  within an indigenous community of a different ethnic group?)