I met him at an NDP convention once. He was a nice man. Self-depreciating. No righteous anger. Not offensive or provocative. Just a nice person.
When I read the headline I felt relieved, but when I read his article I felt annoyed. He is someone who has the means and knowledge to do a genealogy. He's a historian. A high profile historian who could have tapped into his network to find someone who could help him do this work. He had the knowledge and means to find out. I think that he chose not to look into his claim because he already knew the truth - it was a questionable story at best. I think he woke up on the day he was scheduled to meet with the fraud organization and said to himself, okay, today's the day, the jig is up.
When I read the article, I felt annoyed that he tried to make the claim that he only gained materially once - through an Aboriginal Achievement Award. I think that he was trying to imply that even if he had not claimed Indigenous identity, he would have still received all of his sales and accolades and awards. Having worked in education, I can say that many times his work was selected for inclusion in various projects because he was Indigenous. His texts were included in provincial exams on Indigenous literature because he was Indigenous. Had he not been Indigenous, another Indigenous author would have had their book featured. For him to claim he did not benefit materially other than one award is audacious. It completely minimizes the impacts of his inaction. I met a lot of people who advocated for his work because he is Indigenous. And I know people who advocated for his work over the work of community connected, active citizens, accountable-to-their-families Indigenous people. What he fails to acknowledge in his statement is that Indigenous people advocated for him behind the scenes because they thought he was Indigenous. So even when an award was not specifically an Indigenous award, his Indigenous identity factored into it. People advocated for him because they believed him, and believed that he had done his due diligence in verifying his claim.
He also got away with sensationalist, self-depreciating humor because he claimed he was Indigenous. For example, Dead Dog Cafe would have never been accepted if it were a non-Indigenous person making fun of an Indigenous ceremony involving eating dogs. Is it self-depreciating, though, if you are not a member of the group that you are making fun of? No. It is no longer self-depreciating, it is just demeaning other people. This is why it is problematic that he casually references Dead Dog Cafe at the end of his article. He just had to get in one more joke at Indigenous people's expense.
I would bet that he also got funds earmarked for supporting Indigenous people. For example, he ran for the NDP. Did he receive funds targeted to support Indigenous candidates? Did other Indigenous candidates get less funds because they had to to split the pot with him? He worked in post-secondary, where the federal contract legislation mandates employment equity, and so there are targets and sometimes targeted positions. Did an Indigenous person not get a job because he was a targeted hire? These are things which he simply does not acknowledge, and which he feels he owes no apology for.
I think he needs to revisit his claim that he has nothing to apologize for.
As for the people who were surprised by the news, I recommend that they read the Teillet report on Indigenous identity fraud. Joanne Barker's Red Scare is also a good educational resource on "the kinless Indian." And as for people who are relying on mysterious family lore in order to materially benefit from Indigenous identity claims - learn from King's mistake.
