At the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Ojibwa museum, I study canoes of birch bark and of hollowed logs, dresses of beaded flannel, leather moccasins adorned with dyed porcupine quills, instructions for spear fishing -- and a history of how the whites banned spear fishing on reservation land, then poisoned the fish.
I have a vested interest in the reservation. I am one of the many descendents of Ikweseke and Michel Cadotte. My ancestors walked away from their family and heritage, and thus became white. My family called me the "papoose" because I had some of the look of my Ojibwa ancestors. Even though I'm too pale, I know what they're talking about now as I walk by the social services building on the reservation.
I can tell real from facade when I look at the spaces -- the real functions as tools, as baskets, as clothing, as sacred objects. Functional objects can be ornamented, not just function as ornaments; I learned this from the Ojibwa museum.
If I choose to accept my Ojibwa ancestry without having lived on the reservation, having had my livelihood destroyed, or having lived in poverty, would that be facade or a reflection of the complicated history of my heritage?
If I ignore it, do I ignore the comments from my childhood about my face, the story about the white deer, the ancestry?
Can both be real? Facade?
