Boyden too vague about roots: academics

Joseph Boyden’s recent public statement and interviews about his indigenous roots are too vague and don’t fully address the heart of the controversy surrounding his heritage, say academics.

Late last month, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network reporter Jorge Barrera launched an investigation into claims of indigenous ancestry the acclaimed novelist has made throughout his life, and the evidence — or lack thereof — to back it up.

On Wednesday, Boyden released a statement saying his heritage isn’t neatly laid out in official records but instead rooted in stories told by his family. He described himself as “a white kid from Willowdale with native roots.”

“I think the key thing that remains unaddressed by him is the actual content of the original APTN investigation, and that investigation more or less said not only that he gave conflicting statements on his identity but the genealogical research showed that by the looks of things, he doesn’t actually have indigenous ancestry,” says Adam Gaudry, assistant professor in the faculty of native studies and department of political science at the University of Alberta.

David Newhouse, chairman of indigenous studies at Trent University, says there are four official ways in which one can make a claim to be an indigenous person.

The first is on the basis of indigenous ancestry. The second is membership to an indigenous community or that one meets the criteria for a particular community membership.

The third is by claiming to be a member of an aboriginal nation.

The last is either being entitled to be registered under the Indian Act or meeting the Supreme Court of Canada definition of Metis that is set out in the Daniels legal case.

“(Boyden) hasn’t made a claim under the state rules,” says Newhouse.