Buffy St Marie

She's a million times better than Joan Baez, come on.

I found two relatively cheap and full CDs covering a lot of her early work to be most repeatedly useful, plus they satisfied my curiosity re: "Illuminations" -- "Best of Buffy Sainte-Marie" volumes 1 & 2 Vanguard VCD 3/4 and 33/34 -- 24 tracks per CD !

I _do_ remember liking her as a kid on Sesame St. too, and thanks Duane for those suggestions ..

Just thought it was worth a mention.

Gary O.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNLYTY2G1sw

oh my god, 'GGOD IS ALIVE, MAGIC IS AFOOT'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhmeroR20lc

THIS IS INSANE.

It's my favourite recorded song of all time!

god is a foot

Yeah, discovering it was a revelation, it's the setting of that incantatory passage/poem I'd always wanted to hear

She's a good songwriter and "Illuminations" is a very interesting album but there's no way I'll ever be able to get past her voice. Also it's Buffy Sainte-Marie not Buffy St. Marie >:(

I listened to the album this summer, and agree with everything you say. The Dream Tree was my favourite song, but even though it's two and a half minutes long, I've had enough of her singing before the end.

I've been interrogating my musical aesthetics, and I have to admit that a voice I dislike is one of the biggest obstacles to appreciation.

Love her voice, now as much as ever. I've been playing this song a lot recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfurARFMjWk

going down quite a rabbit hole tonight. just listened to cod'ine again and am currently posing as a puddle on the floor.

not a big fan of the 2017 album but the 2015 one, power in the blood, is great!

She's in the news here for a strange, sad story.

https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/buffy-sainte-marie-speaks-out-regarding-questions-of-cree-ancestry/

So she might be of Italian heritage? Confusing story.

A friend of mine who knows far more about most Canadian artists than I do wrote this on his Facebook wall: "I might never watch The Fifth Estate again. Shame on them."

I don't know what to make of any of that at all

*if* the documentary's argument is based on her "biological" ancestry that's transparently racist but the article isn't clear on whether or not that's the case

regardless something deeply fucked up is going on here from someone

A devastating story. It's not easy to digest; Indigenous identity fraud ("pretendians") is a huge highly complex problem in Canada that has taken down a lot of famous people, from Grey Owl to Joseph Boyden.

One huge problem: if Piapot first nation calls Italian-born Buffy family and the public says that's legitimate, that double standard open the whole mess up to such frauds as Boyden and Jordan Peterson.

One other huge thing to consider: Buffy made a TON of money through CanCon. What happens there?

Also, why in the hell did CBC choose to run the story now? It completely distracts from lots of good things Canadian First Nations are doing these days.

Basically, many, many Canadians are very hurt today. It's awful.

a TON of money through CanCon

This is not it.

Fifth Estate is and has always been an awful show; two people i know have been adjacent to pieces they’ve created and were just boggled at how inept the execution was: “it’s not that it was inaccurate, it’s more that it was entirely unrecognizable”.

That said, it does seem premature to be throwing rocks at the CBC before the piece is even aired

My fear is of course not that “Buffy was adopted by a Massachusetts family but was of Italian parentage”, but rather what seems to be the only basis for such an “explosive” piece: that Buffy was not adopted at all, that she was raised by her Italian-Am birth family in Massachusetts, and more to the point, that she has always herself known this was the case, and has been actively lying about having been adopted even as recently as yesterday’s statement

My love for her is unconditional, and I hope that even if the worst is revealed, the broader Indigenous community is forgiving. Her second adoption into the Cree community by the Piapots will hopefully preempt any potential fallout

This is huge, she is inarguably Canada’s most visible Indigenous artist and is a hero to everyone including me

a TON of money through CanCon

This is not it.

By this I meant that CanCon pays out in tonnes, not tons; and it’s less than you think it is

if there is an explosive secret being revealed here would the FBI have known about it already? I would assume not since if they had access to potentially discrediting evidence it's hard to understand why they wouldn't make use of it? but if they didn't that also seems strange

You're likely right, thanks for clarifying.

The story is up on CBC. The report's from her own province too, and she is such a hero in Saskatchewan.

https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/buffy-sainte-marie

couldn't her american family have gotten her as a newborn from her birth mother and then just had a birth certificate made for her with their name? seems like something someone might have done if they had just taken in a baby but wanted the baby to have official paperwork.

that Buffy was not adopted at all, that she was raised by her Italian-Am birth family in Massachusetts, and more to the point, that she has always herself known this was the case, and has been actively lying about having been adopted even as recently as yesterday’s statement

this appears to be the case, but the amount of goodwill she has both in the native community & among her listeners feels kinda unprecedented with this sort of thing.

couldn't her american family have gotten her as a newborn from her birth mother and then just had a birth certificate made for her with their name? seems like something someone might have done if they had just taken in a baby but wanted the baby to have official paperwork.

Yes, however the CBC story shows persuasive evidence re birth certificate numbering that makes this appear very, very unlikely. :(

I thought that was a strike...not so much on replay.

Oops.

Thats a shame love that elliptical voice.
& Illuminations is pretty classic.

Wonder if Red Nation will spend much time on the subject on Monday. They've mainly been talking about Palestine for last few weeks. But they really don't like Pretendians for pretty clear reasons. & if this is true it will be one of the bigger cases of it won't it. Or has she mainly done good in changing attitudes? Which may make it even worse?

xp I believe Iron Eyes Cody got the same "He's a part of the community now, blood quantum is a tool of the oppressors" reaction.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/buffy-sainte-marie-reaction-piapot-1.7011149

This was helpful to read

I believe Iron Eyes Cody got the same "He's a part of the community now, blood quantum is a tool of the oppressors" reaction.

haha no he didn't. maybe in some isolated cases, maybe from some individuals on social media, but in general, no.

her video response was so sad. oof.

this really sucks but yeah she's totally lying, I can't square so many things in this article even trying to give her her benefit of the doubt

https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/buffy-sainte-marie

Yeah the article is pretty impressively researched/organized in its presentation.

sad. what a crazy story.

It really strikes me as disingenuous that the CBC is spending all this time and resources to take down 82 year old retired singer Buffy St Marie as some kind of victory for representation. Like at least Liz Warren was running for president

wtf whiney, wow you don't get it

I mean, I guess I don’t? I’m not Canadian!

Like obviously this is Very Bad, but why now and why the CBC?

cuzza the tipster. they got a tip.

apparently a native person of standing in CA (Kim Tallbear) began this callout process, if that helps?

It does, actually, thank you

salute

crazy how her brother was sending letters to newspapers in the 70s to tell them that she was not native. oof.

anything to help you avoid you reading the article whiney we're all happy to help

Appreciated!

Pretendians have been committing fraud in Canada for decades. It runs very deep. It's common for whites to fake Indigenous status just to get scholarships and grants. Buffy's lie, her betrayal is very, very serious, especially at a time when the country is finally reckinong with its complacency in genocide. She did a LOT of good, but while posing, CLAIMING she's Cree. Look at the damned sesame street clips we all grew up with. She was lying to our faces.

(Sorry, complicity in genocide)

This question "why didn't the CBC just shrug it off" also ignores that they have (apparently unwittingly) been relaying the deception themselves, creating podcasts and broadcasting concerts based around her false identity. So if they didn't make the revelation and someone else did later, it would look a lot like a cover-up.

A friend of mine who knows far more about most Canadian artists than I do wrote this on his Facebook wall: "I might never watch The Fifth Estate again. Shame on them."

...and she's not even a Canadian artist!

not cree but super skrull?

There's stuff floating around right now proposing that if one reads between the lines of Buffy's statement, she is implying that she is the daughter of an affair, and that her birth father is Indigenous. This explanation would actually explain a lot of the contradictions here: birth registered normally, maintains she is Indigenous but doesn't actually know the details of which people is hers, her siblings might not know, etc. It is understandable why, if her mother had told her the secret of her origins, she might have made up a cover story about being adopted.

I'm personally surprised that BSM wouldn't just come out and say this to reporters, but also recognize how a person in that position (who has some old-fashioned views about privacy and propriety, too), might decline to do so - even in the face of reporting like this.

except that isn't true as far as I know, and it has been proven that she has no indigenous DNA (going off comments seen elsewhere)

ok not quite. from yetimike's FB page comments:

"A DNA test revealed her son is related to her blood niece, so she’s not adopted. It also shows almost zero Native American DNA. Not once single person in her family was ever told she was adopted, or that they had any Native DNA."

so... sean might be right here?

it would also explain the baffling "wrong side of the blanket" comment in her statement

fuck, idk

So her son has almost zero Native American DNA? Wouldn't that mean that she couldn't have enough Native American DNA to establish indigenous biological parentage?

no idea tbh, deferring to akm here

btw I literally saw "blood quantum is an oppressor POV" as a comment in that FB thread

So her son has almost zero Native American DNA? Wouldn't that mean that she couldn't have enough Native American DNA to establish indigenous biological parentage?

Wouldn't this mean his father wasn't Native, either?

there's also an old FB post by Buffy's sister Lainey (which has since been made private), that apparently shows 30% Native American heritage? anyway, it's all confusing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/17hmd0z/comment/k6u52jw/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

yes, if there is no trace of that DNA in her children then she's lying.

investiation into her actually happened over a year ago (I know Jacqueline Keeler, who got a pulitzer for her article on Sacheen Littlefeather and who has gotten a shit ton of flack from people for her work uncovering indigenous frauds. The vast majority of these frauds work in academia and aren't big names like BSM. I haven't always liked how Jackie comes across on social media and she's gotten into what I felt were pointless back and forths with people on twitter, but her work on this list was good and came from a good place. She chose not to publicly target BSM in part due to all the crap she got over the Littlefeather revelation and earlier blowback from supporters of writer Rebecca Roanhorse, but Kim was also involved in this work and she, I believe, took this to the CBC. Lots of people don't like Kim now either but she's generally less controversial).

DNA doesn't mean much for proof of identity. Lots of people will have some native DNA; that doesn't mean the tribes will accept you. Having a native person in your family line back six or seven generations is fairly meaningless. But it does work the other way; if there is no trace of it, claiming identity puts you on pretty shaky ground, unless you are descended from Freedmen or the like where there was a prior arrangement with the tribes and formal recognition.

There are people who say that only a tribe should be in a position of determining who is native and who isn't. Lots of tribes are also shitty about things and don't enroll people they should. There is no clear cut answer here, and in some cases there are grey lines. But this, like the Littlefeather story, is pretty egregious. I was unsurprised by Littlefeather; my mother lived in Salinas in the late 60's/early 70's, and I distinctly remember her telling me when I was young that she wasn't native and everyone there knew it at the time. But BSM isn't someone I'd ever heard rumors about.

Quite revolting if the '"acceptable face of the Indian" isn't indigenous. But probably more about white gaze anyway.

I thought after having said she had done positive things for changing attitudes i.e. to indigenous people that would be pretty white gaze too. Since the various peoples were vilified through that white gaze in the first place.

Sorry to hear about this since I do enjoy her music.

There's stuff floating around right now proposing that if one reads between the lines of Buffy's statement, she is implying that she is the daughter of an affair, and that her birth father is Indigenous. This explanation would actually explain a lot of the contradictions here: birth registered normally, maintains she is Indigenous but doesn't actually know the details of which people is hers, her siblings might not know, etc. It is understandable why, if her mother had told her the secret of her origins, she might have made up a cover story about being adopted.

I'm personally surprised that BSM wouldn't just come out and say this to reporters, but also recognize how a person in that position (who has some old-fashioned views about privacy and propriety, too), might decline to do so - even in the face of reporting like this.

― sean gramophone, Sunday, October 29, 2023 8:30 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

it certainly seems like that's what she was implying in this article (shared above) https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/buffy-sainte-marie-speaks-out-regarding-questions-of-cree-ancestry/

but if this were the case wouldn't she have told her brother about it after the incident with the pbs executive, rather than having her lawyer send him a letter threatening to sue?

she also claims in that same video that her mother winifred saint-marie is part mikmaq. so the story isn't just that the mother had an affair with an indigenous man, it's that the mother herself was part indigenous (which no one else in the family corroborates)

my shock is pretty simple. i had no idea she grew up with a white family and went to high school in massachusetts! its not like i ever heard buffy talking about her crazy days in a 50s american high school. i had always assumed that she was from canada and was native and i thought this also explained her accent. and her singing voice. her speaking voice always sounded - to me - like other native people and other canadian people i had heard. there are americans from the east - mass, maine, etc - who have french-canadian roots who sound like that.

i mean maybe she does talk about her time here in her autobiography. but that doesn't explain why her singing voice would have so many characteristics of native singers/speakers? i mean everyone puts on voices when they sing. i get that. young bob dylan was not an old coal miner. but he was also not saying that he actually WAS an old coal miner.

anyway, the whole thing is sad all around for everyone.

xp
Am I remembering right that Jack Kerouac was initially a French speaker from Lowell, Massachusetts

(it was definitely easier to make up your story in prior decades. singers and actors and lots of other people did it all the time. harder for people to check unless they did a lot of detective work.)

Lowell had/has a big population of French-Canadians. they came in the 1800s.

xp I thought Dylan was notorious for picking up quirks from those he was around and making a persona that was not valid and only came out later, though probably as he moved onto his next version of himself . Though it didn't last 50+ years and was more over a few months or couple of years.

they were also immediately hated:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/french-canadian-immigrants-struck-fear-into-new-england-communities-180972951/

btw I literally saw "blood quantum is an oppressor POV" as a comment in that FB thread

yes, I think we're on the same thread -- it is very confusing to me that a prevailing mood among several friends seems to be rooted in "she's great and isn't hurting anybody, she's done a lot of good" combined with some "identity is performative" stuff -- to me, that the tribe says "she's one of us, full stop" carries real and definitive weight, in one sense that's all there is to say -- but in another sense, no: that's lovely, but there is more to say. there's so much "the cbc are monsters for airing this" / "the reporter sucks, look at what else they've done" and these all look to me like really "no matter what, I'm not accepting this."

i have no dog in this fight - which might be disqualifying! - but i feel like she could have used this lie for good or for evil and it seems like she clearly used it for good. so maybe a spirit of magnanimity and generosity could prevail. i guess you could say why is this fake indian sucking all the oxygen out of the room when you could have had real cree telling their own stories and singing their own songs all these years. and well yeah.

"i guess you could say why is this fake indian sucking all the oxygen out of the room"

because she's the most famous native american singer in the world? that's a pretty big deal. its such an integral part of her art and music.

Yeah that's exactly it, in the article the native women who investigate "pretendians" talk about how they take money, honors, and resources intended for actual naticve people, it's a huge betrayal and benefitting off genocide

right i meant “why be generous to this person who has, by virtue of her stupendous fame, likely elbowed real cree out of the frame”

People should really read the article!

young bob dylan was not an old coal miner. but he was also not saying that he actually WAS an old coal miner.

He definitely was not saying he was nice Jewish boy from a respectable family in Minnesota.

Was he not(?) I haven’t read old interviews with him, but I wouldn’t have assumed he hid anything about his background… it’s such a big part of his story now, anyway.

yeah Bob had a few b.s. origin stories, like I think he said he had studied under Mance Lipscomb or something?

I mean a completely different thing that BSM obviously. also I guess see bullshitting as pretty core to Dylan

he was trying to imitate that wily storyteller persona a la woody. i think he said all kinds of things early on to reporters.

but there was that book that came out in the 60s where the guy went and talked to everyone in bob's hometown and college? he wasn't an enigma for long. i think it came out in the 60s. my memory is such crap in my crapitudinous decrepitude. i used to know things!

Positively Main Street by Toby Thompson. “That boy . . . this fellow, Toby . . . has got some lessons to learn.” —Bob Dylan, Rolling Stone, November 29, 1969

People should really read the article!

^^^^ on this. At least read up until the point where BSM sends threatening letters to her brother.

tbh the whole thing with the family, the uncles, the niece didn't sit too well with me because families can be extremely fucked up and full of old resentments and bitterness.

Especially when one member of a family is world famous and the rest of them aren't.

apologies for linking to something on tiktok but this guy has a good take on this

https://www.tiktok.com/@yllwhrseblackfoot/video/7295113394875649285

no need to apologise for for tiktok links!

I don't even have an account on there so I can only view them on desktop and have to dismiss a modal and everything.

that was good and certainly a good thing to amplify Native voices speaking on this issue no matter the platform

xxxxpost what the family says, especially and starting with her uncle's published letter to the local paper in the 60s, is supported by the birth certificate, with clerk spelling it out more in quoted comments and in video interview----obtained by a phone call to city hall, after 60 years of contradictory coverage/dgaf/print the legend---

Also her son's xxxxxpost DNA.

supported/made more plausible.

Finally got caught up on this. Article seems pretty airtight. To me it looks like she originally needed an exotic angle to stand out and just got in way too deep, perhaps to the point where she eventually bought into her own delusion.

to the point where she eventually bought into her own delusion.

yeah i definitely got that sense too

Being charitable you could see her as a young woman who didn't feel she fitted in her immediate milieu and circumstances and was looking around for something to belong to and believe in and found it - but took it too far.

"So you caught me, it seems"

Bravo.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/the-emotional-fallout-of-buffy-sainte-marie-revelations-transcript-1.7013768

Daemon Fairless interviewed Kim Wheeler (who produced Buffy's big Starwalker special last year), and Drew Hayden Taylor (director of the doc The Pretendians).

Without any offence intended here, I think the last four posts should be removed

fine w/me!

This--blows my mind:

KIM WHEELER: It looks like that is the original birth certificating. Yes, her parents are listed as white. But again, at that time, in the forties, I mean, and, you know, I've read so much stuff online and people are saying like people wouldn't list that they were indigenous at that time. You have to remember at that time, Indigenous people didn't even have the right to vote yet. So why would you? Why would you say that your child is indigenous or Native American or First Nations if they had no human rights at that point?

Kim Wheeler just produced a big concert celebrating her as an indigenous heroine, no wonder she's defensive.

Something the CBC article/program didn't get into is Buffy's claim that her mother (Winifred Santamaria) was part Mi'kmaq. If Buffy's whole story is that she was adopted, she doesn't need to prove anything about the identity of the people who raised her. And yet that detail is on her website.

Then, in her statement about the investigation, she said that Winifred "told me some things I have never shared out of respect for her that I hate sharing now, including that I may have been born on 'the wrong side of the blanket.'" If Buffy was adopted, then why would she be so concerned about protecting Winifred with respect to the possibility that she (Buffy) was the product of an affair? Unless she wasn't adopted but her dad was someone other than Albert Santamaria?

I guess I wonder what Winifred told Buffy when she was a kid and how it may have contributed to the stories she's told as an adult.

Something the CBC article/program didn't get into is Buffy's claim that her mother (Winifred Santamaria) was part Mi'kmaq.

Wouldn’t the rest of her family be aware of this? That’s not a detail that would’ve been revealed only to her.

this is just classic liar behavior

I guess I wonder what Winifred told Buffy when she was a kid and how it may have contributed to the stories she's told as an adult.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 1 November 2023 14:57 (one hour ago) link

Generous of you to entertain

it seems really bad but I agree the investigation could have done a better job of explicating the position of her (piapot) family and what that means- because a cursory read could make it appear like they are in denial which I don't think they are - but they barely appear in the story except to contradict some of its basic assumptions in a way that is relatively uncontextualised

obviously how her family feels is not the final word on the subject but the really troubling thing is the deception rather than the fact that she's white - but I haven't seen anything about how they feel about it all. if she did deceive them like she (very likely) did the public - I have to believe she did - has anyone asked?

Something the CBC article/program didn't get into is Buffy's claim that her mother (Winifred Santamaria) was part Mi'kmaq. If Buffy's whole story is that she was adopted, she doesn't need to prove anything about the identity of the people who raised her. And yet that detail is on her website.

am I wrong or did they not get into this in the article?

As part of her report on false Indigenous identity claims, Teillet included a list of what she refers to as “red flags,” warning signs that might indicate someone isn’t telling the truth about their ancestry. One of those flags is shifting Indigenous identities.

Teillet said if those reports accurately reflect what Sainte-Marie told the publications, it is hard to understand how she could claim such dramatically different ancestral lines. She pointed out that the Mi’kmaq live on the East Coast, Algonquin people are from Ontario and northern Quebec and Cree people are primarily from the Prairies.

“It’s really difficult to believe that somebody could mistake being Cree for being Mi’kmaq,” said Teillet. “Those are so far apart that it’s a little bit ludicrous, right?”

Tbc, I have no reason to doubt the CBC investigation, which seems pretty airtight to me. I'm struck by those claims about her mom because they hint at the possibility that there's more to the story -- not in a way that would disprove the investigation but maybe reveal something about her motives and psychology. But yeah, also possible that all of that stuff is made up and conveniently can't be checked because her mom is no longer around.

xp The article says that Buffy herself claimed Mi'kmaq identity -- or at least that news articles in the early years of her career said that she was Mi'kmaq. But now she's saying that she was *adopted* by someone who was Mi'kmaq.

Right, this is how the bio on her website begins:

Buffy Sainte-Marie is believed to have been born in 1941 on the Piapot First Nation reserve in Saskatchewan and taken from her biological parents when she was an infant. She was adopted by a visibly white couple and raised in Maine and Massachusetts. As a child, Buffy’s adoptive mother self-identified as part Mi’kmaq but knew little about Indigenous culture. She encouraged Buffy to find things out for herself when she grew up.

xp My understanding:
*Buffy has variously claimed to be born to parents of different indigenous groups, including Mi'kmaq.
*Separate to that, Buffy has said her adoptive mother claimed Mi'kmaq heritage.

she comes from a long line of pretendians

The CBC article seems conclusive to me. Imposters always fascinate me, perhaps in part in a there-but-for-the-grace-of-god way, as I certainly remember as a very young woman making up things about myself to make me seem more interesting. The difference being that I never became world famous and I could easily discard my fabrications without any consequences. Whereas BSM found herself caught in a trap of her own making and unable to move on from her youthful attempts to exoticise herself.

I've also been thinking about the inconsistencies in how she presented herself before she landed on Cree as an identity and how much it was easier to do that (and not get caught) in the pre-digital days. At the time, she probably never imagined anyone digging it all up.

I'm not sure I buy the idea that she made a Faustian pact to live a conscious lie in exchange for a career, betting her whole life on not getting caught. I am not sure where the truth lies, but it seems improbable with all the people who could expose her (letters of threat or not). Part of me refuses to believe someone would go through so many efforts to deceive.

I am not ruling out the conclusions of the investigation either. I'm just saying it's a baffling story anyway you look at it.

Can't believe I can't find any evidence online of anyone saying "it's time for her to go". Possibly because she's already retired.

I'm sure Adidas will be yanking their deal with her.

The most damning thing to me tbh is the hidden-in-plain-sight article from the local paper in 1964 with her uncle throwing cold water on the whole thing and saying she was born right there at the local hospital — presumably he was in a position to know.

The Occam’s Razor explanation to me is that it started as a bit of wishful showbiz self-mythology — a common phenomenon — that then became an increasingly important part of her public persona. And once she was formally accepted by the Piapot, she probably lost whatever misgivings she may have had about perpetuating it. But she has now lived long enough for things to shift in the culture to an extent that such claims come in for a new level of scrutiny. I’m not sure it was ever an innocent mistake, exactly, but probably it didn’t seem harmful to her at the time.

i think the most damning thing is that she turned around and used her supposed indian heritage to bring the achievements and sorrows of native culture to a wider audience - despicable stuff really

Yeah she’s definitely contributed a lot. But as a non-First Nations person, I don’t feel qualified or entitled to balance the pros and cons.

Indigenous author Michelle Good put it best.

https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/many-of-us-are-heartbroken-over-buffy-sainte-marie-but-we-must-remember-what-she/article_d124e030-59d5-5a84-8641-805a14a01886.html

It’s also important to acknowledge Buffy’s relationship with her Piapot family. She was accepted, embraced and adopted into that family and community; she is what I consider the equivalent of a naturalized citizen of that community, and her acceptance there is entirely in their hands. However, this cannot be taken to mean that Buffy suddenly became Indigenous by virtue of her adoption there, but that she is their relative by way of protocol and customary adoption. That is not subject to public scrutiny.

Indigenous means what was here on Turtle Island, be it flora or fauna, before European colonization. That is not something that can be given or taken by any means. Ultimately, to try to take an Indigenous identity is to try to occupy a space that is meant, by Creator, for another. Taking that space removes it from the reach of those it’s intended for, and perhaps we feel a little complicit in that. It’s important to understand that this is a quietly violent act with sometimes shocking outcomes.

Buffy was our sister, our Kokum, our Auntie, our colleague, our friend. She stood for us and with us and worked for us tirelessly. How can we not feel bereaved? It’s as though the earth has shifted beneath our feet and this person we loved so wholeheartedly is gone; this version of Buffy the icon has, in effect, died. The response to this has rippled across Turtle Island in the form of anger, disbelief and soul-deep sadness. How could we feel any other way?

I come to the same place again and again. Remember, my dear Indigenous brothers and sisters, how you felt at a Buffy concert or when she unexpectedly came on the radio as you were driving and you were exhilarated by the incontestable power of her voice? Remember when she came on “Sesame Street” and we felt such a swell of pride? Remember when she said yes to this organization or that community and came to play for fundraisers for causes close to our hearts at no cost but travel expenses? That feeling does not go away; that feeling does not change.

I feel like I’m writing a eulogy, a feeling reminiscent of times of great loss. In each of those times, I understood that the eulogy’s purpose was to offer comfort to the ones experiencing the loss, not the one lost to them. It is not our place to judge. We raise the loving memories — the reminders of why this person, now gone, was so special.

Regardless of her possible deception, Buffy Sainte-Marie had a profound effect on the way non-Indigenous people perceive and relate to Indigenous people. Her cradleboard project and her Nihewan Foundation are just two examples of what she has given us. And that does not change.

I’m not saying these things to defend Buffy, but rather to recognize that we don’t have to disbelieve or discredit our experiences with her and what she gave us. Buffy will never again be the person she was to us for all these years, but what she has given us does not just dissolve. Those are our feelings, our ways of expression. My wish is that we can comfort and be comforted by that.

It’s also important to acknowledge Buffy’s relationship with her Piapot family. She was accepted, embraced and adopted into that family and community; she is what I consider the equivalent of a naturalized citizen of that community, and her acceptance there is entirely in their hands. However, this cannot be taken to mean that Buffy suddenly became Indigenous by virtue of her adoption there, but that she is their relative by way of protocol and customary adoption. That is not subject to public scrutiny.

Indigenous means what was here on Turtle Island, be it flora or fauna, before European colonization. That is not something that can be given or taken by any means. Ultimately, to try to take an Indigenous identity is to try to occupy a space that is meant, by Creator, for another. Taking that space removes it from the reach of those it’s intended for, and perhaps we feel a little complicit in that. It’s important to understand that this is a quietly violent act with sometimes shocking outcomes.

Buffy was our sister, our Kokum, our Auntie, our colleague, our friend. She stood for us and with us and worked for us tirelessly. How can we not feel bereaved? It’s as though the earth has shifted beneath our feet and this person we loved so wholeheartedly is gone; this version of Buffy the icon has, in effect, died. The response to this has rippled across Turtle Island in the form of anger, disbelief and soul-deep sadness. How could we feel any other way?

As we walk on through the wreckage of what we thought was real, I hope that we can remember the power that was there regardless of her deception. I hope we can hold strong to the understanding that Buffy’s effect doesn’t go away. But Buffy does.

Often, in challenging times, my mother encouraged me to “be brave.” It was a gift from her; an uplifting wish, an expression of faith that I could brave my way through whatever adversity I was facing. I hope with all my heart that we can be this to each other. Let kindness be a tonic; a medicine to wash away the bitterness and betrayal we feel. Let us look at our loved ones and see how wonderful they and you are in each other’s reflection. Let there be a groundswell of love to overwhelm the hurt and anger.

Of course all the good things she did still matter, including representing (portraying) a strong, positive example of the indigenous and for the indigenous as well as any one else at all open to receiving it---but this deception, delusion, force of habit, whatever it is now, distracts from, kneecaps what she represents/portrays. I don't blame the media for that, because the truth must be dealt with, factored in to a reconfiguration of her image in history---I do blame the media in general for not really looking at her, not paying attention to the obvious discrepancies for 60 years---not calling the xpost City Clerk, for instance----and hello Congressman George Santos. How many more pretendians of whatever tribe/other group or non-group are still out there---?

i think the most damning thing is that she turned around and used her supposed indian heritage to bring the achievements and sorrows of native culture to a wider audience - despicable stuff really

― Humanitarian Pause (Tracer Hand), Friday, 3 November 2023 12:29 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

seen a fair amount of “being a pretendian is good actually if you use it to do good” posts like this. i wonder if this augurs a shift in how people see the phenomenon or if it’s just a one-off carve-out for BSM due to unique aspects of her case

I mean, it's different in the sense that BSM was not in a profession where HR professionals informed by DEI guidelines determine who gets the gig. It's not necessarily a zero-sum situation. The argument that she took media attention that would otherwise have gone to indigenous artists is not trivial, but I don't think it can just be assumed either.

can't help but see some similarities between the reactions to this story and the Hasan Minhaj piece in the New Yorker, where a lot of ppl are vocally criticizing the mainstream publication for "smearing" a public figure who has brought attention to the plight of a minority community.

Working around/blaming the messenger for what you don't want to hear, especially about a heroic figure, is a significant part of public life, w Trump etc., and sure she's so much better, an opposite in some ways, but the people who think he's the Higher Truth go by the same way of thinking as some of her defenders incl. creative thought of xpost Kim Wheeler): it's insidious.

seen a fair amount of “being a pretendian is good actually if you use it to do good” posts like this. i wonder if this augurs a shift in how people see the phenomenon or if it’s just a one-off carve-out for BSM due to unique aspects of her case

it's a good question -- I feel like most of the "but she did good" and/or "the CBC is disgusting for running this story" posts I've seen have been from people closer to my age ie olds, and all of those were people with considerate investment in BSM as a figure. (and all of these, among friends, were white people.) younger people just anecdotally from social media have felt like a mix of "this is rachel dolezal" and things in the spirit of the TikTok linked upthread by akm which I'll repost because I think it's good.

https://www.tiktok.com/@yllwhrseblackfoot/video/7295113394875649285

Not positive I had ever heard of Buffy St Marie before this and “how dare the CBC report this story” was a mysterious take, to me. like, seems like news!

Honestly, this is not in any way, shape, or form meant as a defense of Buffy Sainte-Marie. As many others have pointed out the last few days, I'm 100% on the outside looking in here, just following the story. This quote from the new Harry Smith biography did make me think of all this immediately:

"The focal point of downtown art was Greenwich Village, the capital of bohemia for over a century, a home for those who left home and were willing to erase their pasts; a place where they could find themselves, be somebody else, or just disappear."

(Referring to the early '60s, when Smith lived in Greenwich Village and when Sainte-Marie played clubs there.)

However she did it, incl. distinctive music as well as gen. appealing exotic hype, she found ways to sustain a career, like few other female artists from that era and area of association: others were Judy Collins, Joan Baez, and---that's about it, right? And they haven't been that consistently active or visible in quite a while, although there's a Baez doc coming out---in terms of swimming, staying afloat in a community of fans x activities, she's more like a forerunner of Patti Smith.

I have to imagine she’d be shown significant grace/goodwill if she “came clean” and really told the story at this point, rather than continue to obfuscate in the face of all the contradictions…?

A thoughtful perspective I hadn't seen articulated elsewhere:

"There’s no evidence that the CBC considered the impact this story would have on Indigenous public life, and it has had a huge impact. Nor is there any evidence that the CBC made the effort to try and tell the story in a way that would mitigate the harm this could have to Native people. So the question must be asked — was the CBC right in telling this particular Pretendian story, in this way?"

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/the-buffy-sainte-marie-bombshell-has-been-devastating-i-fear-some-of-this-may-be/article_75dab525-9e5d-57e4-9ff3-d0137699b7f7.html

Interesting nuances in that piece; though (to address a point it makes) the fact that she's retired seems to strengthen the case for connecting the dots now (as opposed to when her career was active). That's probably why her family members are only talking now... especially given the lawsuit threats she was making.

ironically those lawsuit threats were toothless, it is exceedingly difficult to prove defamation in the US plus in order to do that she would have had to prove they were lying, which, they were not.

That’s true, though of course you still may have to pay a lot in legal fees to get one dismissed (if you’re on the receiving end).

the impact this story would have on Indigenous public life

As the writer well knows. (Did you read the piece?)

no, sorry.

I will.

A lot to unpack there on the proper role of the media.

Yes, think about how the story will be received. Yes, anticipate reactions and downstream effects on the communities you cover. Yes, think about how publishing something will affect people's lives. Be sensitive in how you present the information you've gathered.

But most journalists would not appreciate hearing that they should not report on a set of facts that is in front of them, out of fear of upsetting people or hurting their feelings or tarnishing the reputation of a beloved cultural icon. That way lies... something other than journalism.

The responsibility of any hurt caused by this story is 100% on Buffy St. Marie.

I see Jago's argument as: establishing the "fact" of Indigenous identity and/or First Nations citizenship is more complicated, or simply proceeds differently, than how the CBC report makes it seem and circulating their version of this "fact" is actively harmful to how Indigenous identity is (mis)understood by the Canadian public.

I also wonder if non-Canadians are missing an aspect of this story, which is the CBC's role as our public news org, i.e., one financially dependent on the government of Canada, whose track record on determining who is or isn't Indigenous and what that determination entails is, let's say, extremely vexed.

I also wonder if non-Canadians are missing an aspect of this story, which is the CBC's role as our public news org, i.e., one financially dependent on the government of Canada, whose track record on determining who is or isn't Indigenous and what that determination entails is, let's say, extremely vexed.

this strikes me as a good point, but I don't think there's a way to sugarcoat "beloved indigenous icon has been pretending for her entire career." IOW upper Mississippi 100% otm -- this could have been prevented by not doing this in the first place. Jago's piece has a lot of good stuff, but its landing -- "It was an unnecessary story to tell in 2023" -- is nonsense imo. It matters if a white lady from Massachusetts faked her way into tribal adoption, even if the tribe in question is cool with it. "She's 82 and retired and won't be cashing in any further" also does not seem like a great point.

It all seems incredibly hindsight is 20/20

I don't know what to think about the necessity question; thinking about it spirals into a big web of confusion about the purpose of the media, as YMP said, what constitutes newsworthiness and why and to whom, etc. As mentioned in the piece, it is pretty striking to me that this is Jago's perspective despite becoming a prominent journalist due to his Boyden reporting. As he said, there are so many of these stories now that I assume this is a constant and deeply unpleasant feature of being publicly Indigenous in Canada—that's not an argument against reporting this one, but it must suck pretty bad, whether its harbouring your own suspicions about peers or feeling the suspicions pointed your way.

Anyway, as a white immigrant to Canada I ultimately can't feel as certain as some of you do about this. TBC: I'm not sure what race any of you are, and I don't want to assume—I'm only saying I try to be humble about Indigenous topics and acknowledge how woefully uneducated I was growing up in the US. Sorry if that comes off as pious. I'm honestly not trying to morally one-up anyone. I've changed my mind on this story a few times now, so invocations of 100% certainty are a little surprising to me is all I'm saying

I also wonder if non-Canadians are missing an aspect of this story, which is the CBC's role as our public news org, i.e., one financially dependent on the government of Canada, whose track record on determining who is or isn't Indigenous and what that determination entails is, let's say, extremely vexed.

Sure but what precisely does a bad track record entail, going forward?

You have had a bad track record, so you keep silent henceforth: shit journalism.

You have had a bad track record, so you overcorrect in a different direction: shit journalism.

You have had a bad track record, so you keep doing what you were doing so as not to be perceived as overcorrecting: shit journalism.

You have had a bad track record, so you completely reverse what you were doing: shit journalism.

This feels like the movie "War Games," where the only way to win is to not play.

the weird thing is that this fake image she created was so effective, so compelling, and married to a real musical gift that I still have to mentally check myself from thinking "Why is everyone picking on this elderly Native woman?" and switch back to understanding that this is a wealthy white woman who lied to create a career in music.

you're not the only one, and from what i've seen, i suspect that some people who couldn't give a flying fuck about indigenous folks are relishing the opportunity for a "free pass" to eviscerate a native icon

yeah totally

the trump / warren phenomenon (not quite the same situation but similar in a couple of ways)

I'm still mixed up on this but it's not for me to decide. it seems clear that my initial take was wrong and she has built her profile on lies but there have been a lot of issues with the reporting and I've seen so many different takes by now from fans and ex-fans. it's really hard to know where the dust will settle on this one

I don't know enough about how indigenous identities are understood in Canada - what would the situation be if she had claimed to be Cree after being taken in by the family but had always been open about her background? would there be less controversy or not? would she still be seen as a white woman playacting? her brand definitely wouldn't have been as effective for better or worse

sorry if this has already been addressed but is it still true that she was monitored / sometimes sabotaged by the FBI? if so how did they not know this, and use it against her to discredit her activism? would it have gone down differently in the 60s, 70s, 80s? were they just incompetent or did none of it happen? it's hard to believe it didn't considering her prominence in the movement but it's also hard to believe they didn't use it

were they just incompetent

guessing this is the most likely

xp
YMP, I genuinely don't understand the point you are making. But abstracting this into a context-less debate about Journalism is never going to make sense to me, so maybe we should just let it go.

FWIW though, I meant that Canada--the nation-state--has the bad track record, not the CBC itself, and I regret saying that because a) the badness is not confined to the past; it is ongoing and b) it's way way too innocuous of a phrase. I was trying to shed some light on how this story might be received in a specific milieu and how merely giving some thought to "downstream effects on the communities you cover" might be woefully inadequate or maybe even possible for people in an elite profession like CBC journalist (and yes, I know they're not all living in mansions rolling around in their journo dollars; I don't mean elite that way)

I can def see the argument for covering the story differently, with more sensitivity/context, etc.; but it is hard to see a news org deciding that Sainte-Marie's apparent history of deception shouldn't be reported on at all.

Jago critiques the CBC's current criteria for reporting a story like this by saying "The questions are so vague that they essentially include every Indigenous person in Canada you have ever heard of" (which I'm not sure is true?); but then also seems to conclude that Sainte-Marie is essentially "too big to fail." I totally get the nuance he's going for with his suggestions of revised criteria, but the story has obvious relevance/significance beyond the impact on the community, even if those concerns should be at the forefront of how it's reported.

I pretty much agree with that.

I'm not sure how it could have been delivered more sensitively.

Kim Wheeler’s arguments (via her appearance on Canadaland) to this end, paraphrased:

- considering the fastidiousness of the Fifth Estate’s reporting on most aspects of their investigation, it was jarring to have them cite one (and only one) person’s opinion (the Stoneham town hall clerk) regarding the definitive “proof” that BSM’s birth certificate indicated she was not-adopted; many other experts would have contradicted this

- considering the fact that it felt as if BSM’s niece’s involvement was largely to discredit BSM’s allegation of her father’s abuse, it felt jarring that the Fifth Estate would seem to be swaying its viewers/readers toward a conclusion that the allegation was fabricated in an instant of obtaining legal leverage; the Fifth Estate did offer caveats to this conclusion, but it nevertheless felt heavily implied

- considering the fact that many members of BSM’s white family were cited and interviewed, it was jarring that Fifth Estate did not include any interviews with BSM’s adopted Piapot family; such interviews would’ve diluted Fifth Estate’s thesis (i.e. issues of bloodline are less important to BSM’s adopted family than their own adoption traditions).

Wheeler, it seemed to me, accepted Fifth Estate’s conclusions regarding BSM’s deception, but when asked if she would herself, as a journalist, run the story as it ran, she said “no”.

Did she expand on the point that "many other experts" would have analyzed the birth certificate differently? It would be notable if that turned out to be less conclusive than presented in the article.

In the case of Wheeler, as an adoptee herself, her first and best reference in this regard was her own history. Wheeler stated on Canadaland that she'd had a birth certificate that was essentially identical to Beverly Jean Santamaria's her entire life-- white people listed as her "birth parents"-- and that she only obtained an original birth certificate (with her biological birth parents listed) as recently as last year.

I've seen other people, both in printed article and "commenting online", stating that the existence of the birth certificate was not-enough to definitively prove anything. This is not to claim "this entire narrative is bullshit, BSM is Indigenous-by-birth", just that had certain corners of the story been as fastidiously researched as other corners, the resultant story might be "less conclusive" (and less scandalous, and less profitable; I enjoy to say that "with The Fifth Estate, the personal is the profitable"), more nuanced, and perhaps easier to discuss and digest.

I have, notably, a family lawyer in my immediate family, and we discussed the article/doc when it came out. My lawyer relative immediately pointed out that the birth certificate "gotcha" was very weak, and went on to look up some Mass. state adoption policy from the 1940s, and came back to tell me that it was an irresponsible conclusion to have made.

(I myself, in my indefatigable skepticism toward "arts journalism", noted even in the Fifth Estate written article that the entire tone of the article changed when it rounded the corner to that "gotcha"; paragraphs became shorter and more pointed, a deliberate change in style to sand-over the weakness of this aspect of the investigation.)

This isn't at all to say that I am "less convinced" by the reporting, and neither was Wheeler, it's just that the weaknesses in the research in certain super-important aspects of the story pushed the doc/article into the realm, in my mind, of "bad journalism".

Well, the clerk (who has worked there 20 years) discussed the birth certificate's numbering, the fact that it was signed by the same doctor who delivered her sister, etc. I can see how perhaps they could have talked to other experts in Massachusetts adoption policy, but this is all against the backdrop of BSM's own statements about her birth records being destroyed in Saskatchewan – which also appears dubious.

Even now, BSM doesn't seem to be insisting that she was actually adopted... she says she doesn't know her birth story, was just told vague things, etc. (right?)

Yeah, I have too many thoughts about it to express with any coherence or economy.

I will just say that it has been absolutely my observation that many musicians, before anyone knows who they are, make up narratives about themselves in order to garner more attention. This tendency is so wide-spread that I'd call it "the rule", not "the exception".

I remember, one interview I gave, in my early 20s, the interviewer asked where I'd grown up and rather than saying "Southern Ontario" I blurted out "Alaska" for no reason. Glad it didn't make the interview or that I never said something so weird again. Imagine being held-to-account decades on for being "Fake Jewel"

Yes I think the drive to self-mythologise is in all of us, and is stronger in those seeking public recognition, which in turn is more dangerous because you can find yourself publicly trapped in a false narrative. It's kind of easy to see how that might have happened with BSM - people maybe telling her when she's young that she looks Native American because she doesn't particularly look Anglo-Saxon, and her eventually running with that

Jago's piece has a lot of good stuff, but its landing -- "It was an unnecessary story to tell in 2023" -- is nonsense imo. It matters if a white lady from Massachusetts faked her way into tribal adoption, even if the tribe in question is cool with it. "She's 82 and retired and won't be cashing in any further" also does not seem like a great point.

Yeah---and he can make those filtering rules at the end for himself, but I want the truth, as far as it can be known: as a member of the public, the audience, I need adjustments to my sense of things, I need the exercise.

If the birth certificate can be faked, sure, let's have the low-down on that from experts vetted and brought forth, not what somebody says somebody else generalized about. But can we, will know if this was done? And then, if BSM was smuggled in from somewhere else, evidence of that, or of the secret ethic identities of BSM's apparent parents, per Kim Wheeler's xpost speculations.

Also, more detail about the son's xxxxxxxpost DNA; I haven't seen anything about that other than way upthread.

But can we, will we know if this was done (in this case)? I meant.

Not wanting to let this late-life home truth eclipse the good she's done, but factoring it into the story: the good stuff can take it, in a lot of minds, hopefully.

This!

I can def see the argument for covering the story differently, with more sensitivity/context, etc.; but it is hard to see a news org deciding that Sainte-Marie's apparent history of deception shouldn't be reported on at all.

Jago critiques the CBC's current criteria for reporting a story like this by saying "The questions are so vague that they essentially include every Indigenous person in Canada you have ever heard of" (which I'm not sure is true?); but then also seems to conclude that Sainte-Marie is essentially "too big to fail." I totally get the nuance he's going for with his suggestions of revised criteria, but the story has obvious relevance/significance beyond the impact on the community, even if those concerns should be at the forefront of how it's reported.

― More skin on 'Love Boat' (morrisp)

It’s not that the birth certificate is faked— that’s not under discussion afaik. Nor is it that (generally) people think this situation is far from what Fifth Estate is alleging: that BSM knowingly deceived people as to her ancestry.

The issue is that many adopted Indigenous people have exactly the same documentation as BSM has: a birth certificate issued to their adoptive family, with no record of their biological birth parents. This is the issue: the conclusions the investigations arrived at were hinging themselves on evidence that, if deemed to be conclusive, could imply similar conclusions toward legitimately Indigenous adopted individuals.

I'm also not drawing any conclusions here, but a birth certificate can most definitely be faked or established for convenience, including being signed by the right people in exchange for payment. An official document is only as true as the integrity of the people who sign it. If people forge documents in 2023 for their own or their kid's advantage (migrants for ex), I can only imagine that the complex context around adoptions in the 40s could also lead to forgeries - for ex. if it was considered better to officially be a white kid. And I think that's precisely where journalists, experts, have a duty of care about their reporting, especially against the temptation to simplify or go for sensationalism.

With that said, BSM would at least need to publicly call the integrity of the document and family testimonies into question, otherwise it's a sign of acquiescence with the CBC conclusions, even if at 82... As Left said, the dust has to settle. If everything is as CBC concluded, then "fine", it's sad public interest has been served. If not, then it's another kind of sad.

A birth certificate issued to adoptive parents isn’t anything that I’d describe as “fake”. It might say “born to these parents, at this hospital”, and be not-factually-accurate, but I don’t think that makes it “fake” so much as “customary for adoptions at this period in history”.

If she was actually adopted, why hasn't anyone in the family who raised her corroborated that story? Why did her uncle refute it in print 60 years ago?

I dunno if we’re communicating well here:

My impression is that the consensus seems to be that BSM engaged in some level of deception. Worst case: she entirely invented a narrative in which she was adopted when she was not, at all. Less-worst case: she was told certain things by her mother to suggest that she was adopted, and BSM invented a history based on that.

The issue is that the material evidence that Fifth Estate used to effectively “prove” that BSM was not adopted was not sufficient evidence to arrive at that conclusion. That it is a reasonable conclusion to arrive at, given all the research that was done, given inconsistencies in BSM’s own narratives, given testimony from BSM’s white family for example; but looking at the birth certificate of an adoptee and concluding “this person was not adopted” is not a reasonable conclusion.

Kim Wheeler stated that her own history was nearly identical in this regard, as an adopted Indigenous person, she had a birth certificate issued, that stated she was the child of her adopted parents. No documentation to confirm any other parents existed, until Wheeler obtained it, last year. By the Fifth Estate’s logic, one could obtain Wheeler’s “first” birth certificate and claim “Wheeler was not adopted”, when she was.

The problem I’m speaking to is that if the Fifth Estate is hinging the existence of an adoptive birth certificate as material “proof” that BSM was not adopted, this creates a false precedent; it is not proof. And: it hurts adopted people (esp Indigenous adopted people) for this conclusion to be arrived at. One expert’s testimony (the town hall clerk) contradicts another’s testimony (Kim Wheeler, for example; any many other people who are versed in the adoption of Indigenous people during the “60s Scoop”) in stating that this birth certificate “proves” anything. It doesn’t.

The CBC is not hinging the case on that, it’s just one of the many details in the piece.

Of course, as it says in the article, Buffy was born in 1941, long before the 60s Scoop.

*sigh*

I don’t think we’re understanding each other. I’m not arguing that BSM engaged in some manner of deception. I am arguing that there was a key aspect of the way Fifth Estate presented their evidence that was irresponsible. Also, just because it’s called “the 60s scoop” doesn’t mean it wasn’t also happening in the 40s

Officially it started in mid 50s I believe. Anyway, it seems you're jumping to even more conclusions than CBC.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I am critical of conclusions that other people are jumping toward.

My own impressions of the Fifth Estate article and doc were an immediate feeling of "this particular aspect of their investigation seemed threadbare, even manipulative". This impression was then shared by Kim Wheeler on the Canadaland podcast. Prior to the article/podcast going live, a journalist was posting on Twitter that "we have the birth certificate" as if it were a smoking gun. The article/doc was otherwise extremely well-researched, cross-referenced, well-filmed and well-edited. I especially liked the moment where they interviewed the "Pretendian hunter", who explained his own history, having been erroneously informed that he was Indigenous, who now researched "Pretendian" cases because "he knew what to look for", and the camera gently paused on a faded tattoo on his hand, the logo of the Wabanaki Confederacy.

When they arrive at Stoneham, and they're interviewing the Stoneham town clerk, and she is giving her expert opinion-- completely unaware of who this "folk singer" is-- she definitively says "this person was not adopted", based on the birth certificate. This is an unreasonable conclusion to be making based on this single document. Kim Wheeler said this, and cited her own documentation as an adopted Indigenous person. My family lawyer relative said, "yeah, idk what things were like in Massachusetts in the 40s, but if it's anything like Ontario, that is an irresponsible conclusion to have made"; this same person then looked up Mass. policy and called me back and said "yeah, no." I noted, even when reading the article after it was released, that the entire style of the reporting changed when it got to this moment, the paragraphs became short, more "gotcha", more pointed, and my feeling was... where's the second opinion? where's the cross-referencing? you guys literally consulted a handwriting expert to verify that "the handwritten note was written by BSM", but you can't consult a second expert about whether or not this birth certificate allows any reasonable conclusions about whether or not BSM was adopted?

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not playing at "Captain Save-A-Buffy" here, I am saying simply that Fifth Estate fucked up, in this aspect of their investigation, that the conclusions they allowed their investigation to make based on the birth certificate is/was harmful to other adoptees who possess no more or less than the same documentation that this Stoneham town hall clerk was claiming was "definitive proof that the individual was not-adopted". It's not proof. Nor is the birth certificate "a fake". It's more complicated than that.

It's not like they don't address the point your lawyer relative made; they quote BSM's own lawyer saying the same thing (and the clerk then talks about why she doesn't believe it applies in this case). I agree perhaps they could have talked to someone else though.

One thing I find odd re-reading that section is that it seems to conflate a few possible meanings of ‘original birth certificate’. The Stoneham clerk says:

“This is the original that came from the hospital,” said Sagarino, who has worked at the Stoneham town hall for more than 20 years. “There’s no refuting this because it’s in my custody from my files in my vault.”

That establishes that this is definitely the certificate that originally came to Stoneham town hall from the hospital (not a later substitution, say), so in that sense, it’s the original birth certificate. But that seems compatible with the information on the birth certificate having been falsified when it was first written.

But then in pointing to the certificate numbering and lack of adoption records, the clerk says that there’s “100 per cent certainty that this is the original birth certificate.” The conclusion there is that this birth certificate is original in the sense that BSM was truly born in Massachusetts on Feb. 20, and this is the birth certificate signed at her birth. These seem like two very different meanings, and the article doesn't try to disentangle them.

I do agree that there could have been more to say in this section. For instance, it's hard to know exactly how much independent weight to give to the record numbering. Like, from BSM's point of view, if you assume that the birth certificate doesn't reflect her actual birth parents and birth location, then it doesn't seem like a huge stretch to think that the birth date on the certificate is also false, i.e. they just entered the date the certificate was written (and that this accounts for the record being at #49). That's something a historical expert might have helped with - whether this is plausible given adoption practices at the time.

Would they have written it at 3:15am though? Or just made up a time of birth? (I'm honestly asking, and I suppose these are questions that could be addressed if the issue was dug into further.)

is it really so hard to believe that BSM's mom told her that she was adopted, or that she was the product of an affair with an indigenous man, and so Buffy felt like an alien in her own family, then found solace and identity in the indigenous community after leaving home, culminating in the Piapot adoption? self-mythologizing aside, why are we certain that the foundational deception, if that's what it is, lies with her and not e.g. with her mother?

i'm not invested in any particular outcome, mind you, and ultimately if the indigenous community decides she's got to go, i'm certainly not going to argue with that.

but at the very least it seems like we should give BSM the chance to respond before utterly dismissing her? idk.

again, not saying these things because i need BSM to be indigenous. if she's a fraud then she can go fuck herself. but it's just weird how a bunch of non-native ppl suddenly become experts on ancestry and indigenous identity whenever stuff like this happens. i'm just saying that it seems confusing

Well she did respond

By the way (just to be clear), I'm not personally making any judgment on whether her indigenous identity should or shouldn't be accepted by the community, based on all the factors of her life. In fact seems like the best-case scenario (for everyone) would be that it were still able to be accepted.

okay i must have missed her response somehow?

https://pitchfork.com/news/buffy-sainte-marie-defends-indigenous-heritage-ahead-of-investigative-report/

i did see that. i meant a response, which usually comes after something

Well she got ahead of it.

(her lawyers also respond on her behalf in the article, and she declined to be interviewed for it.)

I’m going to listen to this today:

https://dont-call-me-resilient.simplecast.com/episodes/how-we-tell-buffy-sainte-maries-story-matters-explained-by-a-60s-scoop-survivor

Would they have written it at 3:15am though? Or just made up a time of birth? (I'm honestly asking, and I suppose these are questions that could be addressed if the issue was dug into further.)

― Phair · Jagger/Richards · Carl Perkins (morrisp), Wednesday, November 8, 2023 11:44 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

You didn’t know that after a kid is born the parents can make up whatever time of birth they want? All of mine were born at 4:20 on June 9th.

some interesting discussion here but ultimately imho the inference doesn’t rely on any single piece of evidence (ie birth certificate) that is alone dispositive, sufficient or necessary for the conclusion that BSM pretended. rather it’s all of the evidence taken together that makes it basically incontrovertible. the lawyerly tactic (i mean this non pejoratively) of trying to sow doubt by unraveling the weakest points of the argument won’t really work, there are just too many things that all line up and point in the same direction, can’t all be coincidences

having said that, i haven’t seen anyone address the fact that the numbers on the birth certificate line up sequentially with other births and therefore aren’t consistent with adoption. so i think the certificate is more of a smoking gun than some want to admit

I do agree that there could have been more to say in this section. For instance, it's hard to know exactly how much independent weight to give to the record numbering. Like, from BSM's point of view, if you assume that the birth certificate doesn't reflect her actual birth parents and birth location, then it doesn't seem like a huge stretch to think that the birth date on the certificate is also false, i.e. they just entered the date the certificate was written (and that this accounts for the record being at #49). That's something a historical expert might have helped with - whether this is plausible given adoption practices at the time.

― jmm

what i meant more was has anyone found a historical expert offering evidence that the contrary interpretation is correct? if so i haven’t seen it. the birth record specifies that her parents stayed in the hospital for 3 hours and that she was born at 3:15am. not clear why they would fill something in for those field if it were an adoption

@ flopson, to be clear, I wasn't trying to "sow doubt" as to point out that the particular lack-of-follow-up regarding the singular assertions made by the Stoneham town hall clerk was, broadly, hurtful to adoptees, as the things that were being expressed were by-no-means conclusive. I remain convinced by the article and doc that some manner of deception was at play, for sure. Personally, and my relative agrees, the presence of a "birth hospital" and "delivering doctor" (the same hospital and doctor that had delivered BSM's sister) on the birth certificate effectively leaves us both sufficiently convinced that "BSM was not adopted, as she has claimed"; but again, I don't know for sure if this, too, was standard practice in the issuing of birth certificates for adopted children.

To be clear, I don't think she was adopted either. I think the mass of evidence points this way, and to make the contrary work basically means explaining away all the evidence.

sorry didn’t mean to imply that that’s what you were doing or that that was your motive. unfortunate choice of word on my part. all i meant the sum of evidence is much greater than its parts here

(xp)

thumbsup.jpg

i always get those Peter La Farge records on Folkway in at the store and i never pay too much attention to them but the two i have our songs about Native Americans and i looked him up and he really was the original Buffy as far as the faux-Indian thing goes. sheesh. the liners on the 1963 album say he's from the Nargasets who were wiped out and then he was adopted by the Hopi Nation. but both his parents were just from Rhode Island and they came from money. so weird. probably best known for contributing songs to Johnny Cash's Bitter Tears album.

"Throughout his career, Peter represented himself as an American Indian. He said he was Hopi, raised by the Tewa people, or Pima, like Ira Hayes. He said that he had been adopted by the writer Oliver LaFarge at the age of nine (Oliver was a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, and his book, Laughing Boy, is a sympathetic account of the Navajos). Accounts on the Internet, ranging from allmusic.com to Wikipedia to the Smithsonian Institution to the website that bears his name, all call him a Native American or American Indian.

But in reality, he was born to and raised by Oliver LaFarge and his wife, the heiress Wanden Mathews LaFarge, in their Santa Fe home. His parents divorced in 1935, when he was four years old, and his mother married a rancher in Fountain, Colorado, where he spent his formative years, and where he changed his name from Oliver Albee to Pete. His mother tells the whole story here."

https://fakingit.typepad.com/faking_it/2007/06/here-come-the-1.html

https://i.discogs.com/lTh1kFwremPlzoKK7vXAjiofG5Z2zNayG8cI9DIW40A/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:597/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTI5ODc4/NTYtMTM4MzQ4NDky/MC03NDgxLmpwZWc.jpeg

sorry if all this was already mentioned here. i didn't check.