Sept. 20, 2023

To the Board of the Northern Great Plains History Conference

Since July, there have been at least three separate news articles detailing the objections by Native organizations and tribal officials to Kent Blansett’s disputed affiliations with at least five American Indian nations. Many colleagues and Native community members have expressed concern about Blansett’s participation as a keynote in the NGPHC’s conference next week.

What is NGPHC’s response to the elected tribal leaders, Native scholars, and community members genuinely and sincerely questioning Blansett’s credibility?

In response to public outcry, Blansett recently muddied the waters with a self-published family genealogy and lengthy service bio posted to his KU faculty page. The truth is that none of the alleged documentation or personal family narratives are a substitute for provable ties to American Indian nations. As a member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and as a scholar of American Indian studies and history, I know from years of professional service to Native communities that individual claims do not—nor will they ever—trump the collective, sovereign right of tribes to determine their membership and belonging. This includes the category of descendancy. We are nations bound by collective sovereignty, not individual affiliations or self-selected titles.

These are not theoretical or abstract matters. While we are familiar with government schemes to take and seize Native land, there is less of a focus on how the destruction and disparaging of our tribal belonging and citizenship are part of elimination policies. Despite implacable tinkering of the laws to undermine tribal citizenship, tribes have never renounced their right to determine their own. And yet, the continued denial of tribal citizenship and belonging has done immeasurable harm.

My own family members, like most Native families, have harrowing and painful stories of survival and loss at boarding schools. Recent federal investigations into boarding schools have shown how more than a century of genocidal policy attempted to systematically disintegrate tribal solidarity and membership through child removal and forced assimilation. The goal was to access Native and land resources by destroying the very glue that held together tribes—Native families.

Fraudulent claims of Native identity trivialize those painful experiences and the hard work of advocates trying to reconnect individuals separated from their tribal communities. It was the work of the American Indian Movement to combat Indian child removal and to embrace the Native family as central to the survival of Indian Country. That history came to a head at Wounded Knee in 1973.

The reasons for Wounded Knee, however, have also been muddied and misrepresented by various bad faith actors and a slew of sensational storytelling. Having a keynote speaker at the NGPHC on the fiftieth anniversary whose credibility has been questioned by tribal nations and journalists only adds to the many controversies of Wounded Knee historiography. Disreputable figures have made careers writing about our reservations' political violence and turmoil during this time. Ward Churchill, who, like Blansett, falsely claimed affiliation with the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee, wrote several books on AIM and FBI surveillance. Serle Chapman, a British national who falsely claimed to be Northern Cheyenne, told his interview subjects that he was writing a book on the history of AIM only to be exposed as a paid federal informant during the 2010 trial of Richard “Dick” Marshall. The outing of these men as frauds had consequences for serious scholars of AIM history and, more importantly, exploited the trust of Native elders who survived violent repression for advocating for treaty rights and sovereignty. Blansett, facing his own similar self-made controversies, continues to disparage the legacy of the Wounded Knee.

Finally, the most perverse assertions are that those who genuinely question Blansett's claims somehow participate in “racist” or colonial behavior. His public statements against Native people legitimately challenging his claims are an inversion of history where victims become victimizers, and the colonized become the colonizers. It is an insult and has no place in a serious academic organization.

We are living in a moment of reckoning regarding the prolific nature of American Indian identity fraud. Academic associations and institutions are being forced to confront this widespread problem. NGPHC is hosted in Oceti Sakowin territory, and what is currently South Dakota is home to nine sovereign tribal nations. As a member of one of those nations, I am deeply concerned about the message it sends to our communities to have such a controversial and discredited keynote speaker speaking as an “expert” about our history.

Sincerely,
Nick Estes
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Assistant Professor of American Indian Studies
University of Minnesota

References:
Chief of Shawnee Tribe says KU professor falsely claims Indian descent. August 7, 2023. https://sentinelksmo.org/chief-of-shawnee-tribe-says-ku-professor-falsely-claims-indian-descent/

University professor speaking in Sioux Falls accused of being 'pretendian' Author is supposed to talk about Wounded Knee occupation and political fallout https://www.thedakotascout.com/p/university-professor-speaking-in

The Kansas City Star: Native groups accuse KU professors of being 'pretendians'
https://www.kansascity.com/news/article277464123.html