Perceivable Differences

Pulera (2002) focused an entire book on the racial implications of perceived phenotypic differences and concluded: “Observable differences in physical appearance separating the races are the single most important factor shaping intergroup relations, in conjunction with the social, cultural, economic, and political ramifications that accompany this visual divide. These dynamics animate the unceasing struggles for power, recognition, and resources that occur between, among, and within American racial groups” (8–9). Many students in this study shared stories that revealed how the frequent desires for racial openness and noncategorization cause friction vis-à-vis the real politics of everyday life in a white supremacist society. An important factor to consider is how a racial caste system constructs different versions of reality for nonblack and black mixed-race people. In other words, the existence of racial castes have ontological and epistemological implications for mixed-race people. Most nonblack mixed-race people view multiracial reality as having a variety of fluid options to more successfully navigate pro-white realms. On one hand, such belief creates a fundamental position that does not critique the biological and political construction of race. On the other, black mixed-race people are placed in more alienated positions. As a result, mixed-race groups with dark phenotypic features become suspicious of lighter mixed-race people who seek a higher-status group association. The racial reality is that mixed-race people with certain phenotypic features, that is, “whiter” and/or more European looking, are assigned more human value and reap more material and psychic reward. This discursive and material practice of assigning value is based on certain mixed-race unions having a specific status embedded in the existing rankings and inequalities of a white supremacist racial order.

For example, as a fair-complected nonblack mixed-race person, Samantha experienced group exclusion from her mixed-race American Indian peers.

Samantha’s group authenticity was questioned based on her light skin. And due to the political nature of skin color having both a material and political value, a white/American Indian mixed-race person who phenotypically appears white is questioned because there is a long history of those who use their light skin color as an advantage in order to become upwardly mobile, or at least to be less denigrated. After all, white people are more comfortable with those whom they think look like them.

Amy’s experience was similar to Samantha’s. It included direct questioning of her identity by her peers. “Because like I look white . . . I get questioned by people on campus. You know, like, ‘Are you Native? What percent are you? How much?’ I was like, ‘Why are they asking me all of these questions? They don’t know me.’” Amy’s experience with American Indian group boundary marking is yet another example of how skin color is seen a political leverage. Anthony gives a candid perspective of why peers judge one another. “I believe issues arise from students when they feel that they need to prove themselves to the rest because they feel deep down that others are going to judge them. From my experiences with peers, this type of attitude arises from light-skinned Natives who feel that they won’t be recognized as Native by their darker-complexioned brothers and sisters.” Unlike Anthony’s recognition that many American Indians will not trust those mixed-race members who look white, Samantha’s and Amy’s discourses do not convey an acknowledgment of the power structures that are at play, nor do they acknowledge that “looking white” gives them a status position within a racial hierarchy.

The history of white advantage positions many light-skinned multiracials as “posers,” or intruders on the terrain of authenticity. Logan, a brown-complected mixed-race person, discussed his problem with some light-skinned mixed-race peers. “I find it annoying when people who lack a connection with their culture go into society and do nothing to further the positive image of that culture. For example, when a light-skinned multiracial individual goes into town and, in an attempt to be trendy and cool, strikes up a conversation that doesn’t shine in a positive light on their cultural community, that bothers me. They are so desperate just so they can fit in.” These actions by lighter-skinned American Indians create consequences for the disenfranchised group and divisions that lead to automatic suspicion of the lighter-complected mixed-race person as someone who will distort the image of American Indian people.

Logan openly discussed a conversation with his college roommate that gave a clear indication of how cultural styles also evoke notions of American Indian ethnoracial authenticity.

Logan’s roommate’s depiction of “thuggish” as a stereotypical portrait of black culture creates an image that the majority of the black population are members of gangs and commit illegal acts as a norm of daily behavior. It also draws a line of social distinction between blacks and American Indians: one thuggish, one not.

Although Logan was very opinionated about a peer stereotyping someone as being “thuggish,” and thus not American Indian enough, in a later conversation he categorized someone as “playing Indian.” Logan’s views often changed based on the social and political situation or the context of the discourse. For example, he said the following:

Logan’s willingness to define a person’s authenticity reiterates the racialized political nature of group association.

Demarcations of group boundaries play out in how people organize themselves in social space. Group associations, though personal on one level, take on larger social meaning. For instance, Kim and Stacey experienced situations at Cliff View where groups of peers sit together in the cafeteria based on their constructed sense of authentic Indianness. Kim viewed the cafeteria as a place where people separated themselves.

And since authenticity defines group association, it is not uncommon for darker-skinned American Indians to be leery of lighter-skinned American Indians, who receive more advantages in a white supremacist system. In regard to societal influences, the final determination of group association in many cases is how you align yourself both socially and politically within a racialized power structure. So, lighter skin is viewed as providing an inroad to less discrimination, therefore, darker-skinned people will view lighter-skinned people as actively not aligning themselves with denigrated groups, distancing themselves from those with lower status, thus helping to reify status differences.

Stacey’s views of the cafeteria groupings are similar to Kim’s.

Stacey’s views of “bad vibes” pinpoint the politics of skin color at Cliff View and the group associations of certain mixedness on campus that are comparable to the larger societal influences of group membership. It is interesting to experience what is essentially racial segregation at what is supposedly a monoracial, that is, “Native,” school. It is worth noting that since the cafeteria is a facet of Cliff View College’s social realm, it reflects the values and attitudes of the broader societal norms of whiteness that in turn impact students’ schooling experiences.

Kathy has faced reactions from peers, particularly at Cliff View, about her appearance. While a number of nonblack/American Indian participants could fit into some kind of group association within an American Indian community based on their cultural and traditional knowledge, Kathy lacked both cultural and phenotypic similarities to her peers. Kathy’s experiences seem to have been similar throughout her school years, according to her account of her younger years as a mixed-race person. “When I was in the ninth grade, I expressed myself as a black girl. I went to school on an army base with kids from around the world, but my track teammates were primarily black and white. As hard as I tried to fit in with the black kids, they always called me out and exposed my mixed heritage. I can’t pass for anything other than a mutt.” Kathy gives another example of being raced by a peer, who categorizes who he thinks can or should identify as an American Indian artist.

A different example of Kathy’s art being criticized by her peers includes the topic of mixed race.

As a result of Kathy being mixed race with black, more than often her experiences have included the questioning of her group association and the authenticity of her Indianness.

Tony recognizes the criticisms of peers but also provides an insight into the practice of racial demarcations at Cliff View, such as how colorism influences where students sit in the cafeteria.

Tony’s experiences bring to mind the idea of being generically American Indian, and in this case, the definition of “Indian” would depend on which group of students you were to ask in the Cliff View cafeteria. That certain groups sit together is an example of how racialized group membership, orIndianness, is formed and re-formed.

Mixed-race students’ perceivable differences were associated with their experiences of either acceptance or rejection from their peers. Inclusion or exclusion was conducted through tests of authentic versus inauthentic Indianness. Other contributing factors to this placement on one side of the line or the other included what race each student seemed to identify with most closely (phenotypically, socially, and politically). When a student’s mixedness (i.e., white or black mixedness) was obvious, such as mixed race with white and phenotypically white features, many students either negotiated within the white realms of privilege or perceived themselves as victims, denied full inclusion. In contrast, those with black mixedness continued to experience substantial disenfranchisement and alienation, marked primarily as outsiders. In the focus group, reactions to these experiences varied among students, with some being more empathetic than others. Unfortunately, students did not decide to organize or seek out peer groups, but their experiences did shape the students’ self-identity and perceptions of others. Moreover, Cliff View College, as an educational institution, did not operate outside of racialized societal norms and therefore facilitated the racial ordering of students (as seen in the cafeteria). As a result, some students viewed Cliff View College as hindering their artistic and academic experiences based on their phenotypic mixedness.

Surviving the Losses

There is obviously a familial impact on how Indianness is defined, renegotiated, and asserted, but there is also an overall sense of identity survival among peers. As described by Paul Ongtooguk (as cited in Tatum 1997), an Alaskan Native educator,

There is a sense of survival among American Indian people. As a result, group membership through peer interaction is often a symbol of identity, especially at Cliff View College. Through “surviving the losses,” many peer interactions result in long-term relationships and often are encouraged by family members.

Stacey’s family has always encouraged an American Indian identity. They hope that by attending a tribal college, she will meet an American Indian companion to continue her family’s legacy of survival.

Stacey’s family supports and influences her views on the importance of having a racially American Indian partner.

Logan’s views of survival are similar to Stacey’s. “When you really think about it, the fate of my family lies in blood quantum . . . unfortunately. And if I marry a non-Native, my children’s blood quantum becomes even lower since I’m only half. I would prefer to be a Native person . . . my girlfriend is Native and I met her here. Is she a member of my tribe? No, but she’s Native regardless.” As Logan explained, since there is a sense of survival among students at Cliff View College (regarding, for example, blood quantum enrollment policies), many of the participants explicitly stated their racial preference for an American Indian partner. Amy candidly explained, “My mom has always embraced our Native culture and especially the idea of me being at Cliff View College . . . you know . . . being around other Natives. She came here as a student, too. And if I was going to be in a relationship with someone . . . they would be Native. We make friends here and sometimes that turns into dating . . . I have always liked Native guys.” Amy also has a sense of survival through partnership. The desire for a “Native” partner seems premised on the notion that race is in fact a biological essence, regardless of notions about Nativeness being a mostly cultural phenomenon.

Anthony had a perspective of cultural survival rather than racial survival being supported at Cliff View College:

And since group association and authenticity are also connected to cultural knowledge, Anthony described the importance of being “proud of all my parts.”

Kathy bluntly stated that her racial preference for a partner was “Native American men . . . I have my preferences . . . me and my friends call them the brown boys.” However, Tony had a perspective of cultural and traditional survival rather than racial survival.

Tony explains that Cliff View College supports “surviving the losses” through family housing and with future goals of opening a daycare center on campus. Such provisions show that American Indian self-determination has evolved into a need to stem the tide of the multigenerational losses of many American Indian communities through a lens of a governmentally determined blood quantum and biological essence—that is, maintaining the “race” is at least as important as maintaining the “culture.” And with self-determination goes a focus on survival, and thus the major issue becomes how to survive governmental determination in a tribal college learning environment while remaining American Indian against the odds. Cliff View, as a matter of policy, provides the infrastructure to perpetuate the creation of children who “look” Native. While this is in a way a form of survival, it is also a way to reify the boundaries of who counts racially as an American Indian person.

An analysis of the students’ discourse on survival highlights two points of view. One stance is the perspective of racial survival. On the other hand, there is a stance of cultural and traditional survival. Because race is used as a device to categorize people based on the power structures of whiteness, the need to racially survive based on blood quantum will further assert and assign racial labels. More important, it will widen the gap between acknowledged and nonacknowledged members to group association as American Indian. As blood quantum continues to play a role in the woven fabric of tribal enrollment and access to economic resources, the divisions between different mixed groups will heighten the strife of race dynamics. In this way, blood quantum, once internalized, operates as a wedge within Native people, drawing status distinctions and lines of membership.

There is much reason to believe that the notion of blood quantum has already been normalized. Logan provides keen insight into the naturalization of blood quantum discourse at Cliff View College, supplying an example of racial dynamics that divide students into insider versus outsider group associations.

Logan makes a powerful point—what other ethnoracial group subjects itself so openly to questions about racial biological lineage? And while it can be argued that American Indian people have little choice in that matter because the US government is the driving force behind blood quantum, there is also an element of complicity. What makes blood quantum so enticing is that it is a way to dole out relative power and privilege within the American Indian community. This is done not only by the government but also by American Indian people themselves, in part, through the practice of colorism and interethnic racism.

If a person is not allowed into group membership based on not having the appropriate blood quantum value or phenotypic features, raced people with accepted group membership are indeed active participants of a racial hierarchy. For example, the concept of American Indian group membership being determined by blood quantum dictates a person’s access to cultural and traditional practices that often define one’s tribal connection and group association as an insider versus an outsider. And in certain situations, one’s mixedness determines if group membership will hold a certain value. Blood quantum directly impacts the myth of tribal sovereignty and reaffirms the realities of the power structures that uphold raced categories. Neither the politics of blood quantum nor the myth of tribal sovereignty can create immunity for a raced group from the social and political power structures of a white supremacist legacy, particularly under government policies and laws. As governmental decrees determined the blood quantum of blacks as being the “one-drop” rule, the same power dynamics are at play to determine tribal membership or recognition.

As blood quantum becomes the deciding factor for authenticity of one’s Indianness, the power structures at play will then determine the nonexistence of Indianness as more tribal communities are becoming generationally mixed raced. The overarching issue is to dismiss white social and political structures, while decolonizing the construction of the desire to attain whiteness. This will be difficult to do when the internal structure of American Indian communities are stratified by colorism.

We turn now to addressing mixed-race students’ representations of the impact of multiraciality on their academic experiences. I will look specifically at the role of the push for American Indian self-determination at Cliff View. Also, I will consider the reasons why these mixed-race students chose to attend a tribal college.