Buffy St Marie

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)