Preface: Sorry, this is a bit long, but I do think its important to think about.

Article One: Could 'identity shifting and pretendianism' be potential fraud?
In this November 20th article, APTN discusses an investigation of a federal MP who––allegedly––wrongly claimed an Indigenous ancestry for business and political advantages. The contracts that Boissonnault attained through his fraudulent claims were reserved for individuals who had been disadvantaged through generational trauma and cultural genocide. King talks briefly about pretendians in a slightly different context in his book, but the motivation seems to be the same; money. In King’s book, the pretendians and the use of the ‘iconic’ or ‘commercialized’ image of an Indian is, at least, distasteful, and illustrates the narrowmindedness of our capitalistic settler-colonial culture. But to see this act of pretendianism at the level of government officials is gut wrenching. “Obviously, we’re never going to get to a reconciliation with our Indigenous Peoples in this country if we’re not going to acknowledge the truth” (Leah Ballantyne).

Concession: Truth and reconciliation is going to be a difficult learning curve for some people, and ‘small slips’ in reasoning could have ginormous ramifications against the public and the individual. For instance, I sometimes/slightly identify as a Baha’i, though this is not true. I was raised by a father who was a Baha’i and participated in events such as Naw Ruz and monthly feasts. However, I am not a legally registered as a Baha’i; am I a hypocrite? Is this small generalization of my identity as bad as Boissonnault’s? If his identity slip was like mine––about being Baha’i––would it be as controversial? Why or why not?
Now, my situation is a little different because I am not committing significant financial fraud which diminishes the resources set aside for a culture being reconciled with, but if we are guilty of ‘small scale’ fraud, we too should be reconsidering how we justify our self-identification and the ramifications of our contribution to a culture of misidentification.

Final note on Boissonnault: Perhaps the regulations we have restricting those who deserve assistance funding is incorrect? I am not saying that Boissonnault is deserving of the financial support nor the reserved contracts, but I am wondering if the way that we authorize funding and contracts to individuals needing assistance is incorrect. It may be the case that a non-registered Indigenous person requires assistance even though their legal status is restricting them from getting it. Furthermore, perhaps those who need the funding most are not the same ones who are investing millions of dollars into a company. There ought to be a better way of distributing assistance to those who are struggling most.

Transition to Article Two: Everyone is making a big deal about Boissonnault right now, however there is another ‘forgotten’ claim of indigeneity in Albertan government.

Article Two: Danielle Smith says she has Cherokee roots, but there's no record of them
According to APTN, Danielle Smith has also made false (or at the very least, unsupported) claims about her ancestry as well. In April 2012, Smith made a statement saying, “not only was she sensitive to these issues [racism and bigotry towards the LGBTQ community]––she had been personally affected by them.”

One, her claim is illogical. Just because an individual is of a certain ethnicity, does not mean that they are incapable of being a racist nor a bigot nor associated with a secondary community. Smith hides behind this claim as though it gives her immunity to the consequences of her statements, decisions, and ideological alignment.

Two, just because you are Indigenous does not mean that all of the decisions you make are in the best interest of Indigenous communities.

In Concession, not all records of Indigenous status are necessarily 100% accurate. “There is no evidence, however, to demonstrate that Danielle Smith’s family is Cherokee.”; what this means is that there is no physical/legal evidence that Smith’s ancestor was Cherokee, however there is potential that the oral record of her ancestry is correct. In short, perhaps Smith’s great-great-grandmother missed the ‘signup form’ that would have legally confirmed her nationality but her stories and identity lived on through her familial lineage.

Closing Article Two: These matters of ancestry are tricky predicaments which may never be solved, however, the ethnicity of a government official should not influence how we vote; what matters is what they stand for. Furthermore, if an individual is making claims of ethnicity as a means of marketing themselves as ‘better than’ or ‘authentic’, perhaps we should look closer into why they are distracting us from what is important.

Closing Note: Pretendianism is extremely harmful to Indigenous communities on many different levels (economically, culturally, politically, and representatively) and should be treated seriously through both legal ramifications and public opinion.