Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science

by Kim TallBear

Who is a Native American? And who gets to decide? From genealogists searching online for their ancestors to fortune hunters hoping for a slice of casino profits from wealthy tribes, the answers to these seemingly straightforward questions have profound ramifications. The rise of DNA testing has further complicated the issues and raised the stakes.

In Native American DNA, Kim TallBear shows how DNA testing is a powerful—and problematic—scientific process that is useful in determining close biological relatives. But tribal membership is a legal category that has developed in dependence on certain social understandings and historical contexts, a set of concepts that entangles genetic information in a web of family relations, reservation histories, tribal rules, and government regulations. At a larger level, TallBear asserts, the “markers” that are identified and applied to specific groups such as Native American tribes bear the imprints of the cultural, racial, ethnic, national, and even tribal misinterpretations of the humans who study them.

TallBear notes that ideas about racial science, which informed white definitions of tribes in the nineteenth century, are unfortunately being revived in twenty-first-century laboratories. Because today’s science seems so compelling, increasing numbers of Native Americans have begun to believe their own metaphors: “in our blood” is giving way to “in our DNA.” This rhetorical drift, she argues, has significant consequences, and ultimately she shows how Native American claims to land, resources, and sovereignty that have taken generations to ratify may be seriously—and permanently—undermined.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Indigenous, Race, History, Anthropology, Native American

256 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 2013

About the author

Kim TallBear is associate professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin.

Reviews

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This reads like a series of papers edited into dissertation. However, the content is fascinating and an incredibly important topic for tribal sovereignty. It's always important to recognize what sort of cultural and personal biases shape scientific research and understanding, and this point does a pretty good job of pointing out how these factors are influencing the still-developing concept of Native American DNA.

[Laurie Neighbors · Rating 3 out of 5]

Someone was teasing me the other day for one of my review here where I said a book "hit me in the clavicle." It's true though. I often experience books physically, in distinct ways, some of them cliched, I suppose. A book might "leave me shaking" or have me "paralyzed." I'm waiting for that someday-book that makes it so that I can't "sit down for a week." It's a way of mapping the experience of not just reading, but absorbing thought, I suppose. I have a little library behind my sternum. Another floating under my kneecap. Books under the soles of my feet.

This book, I can tell you, really got under my cranium.

[Winoka Begay]

Tallbear explores the area of genetics and technoscience in re-defining Native American identity and transforming tribal governance. Tallbear guides the reader through a critical analysis of what Native American DNA is, how DNA testing is used in our modern world, and the overarching question; how may genetic testing affect contemporary tribal governance and Native identity? Tallbear challenges DNA testing and human genetics research as a false representation of Native American identity, implying that these companies see Native American identity as purely racial when it is far more complicated than that.If Native American communities decide to put DNA testing into practice in order to determine tribal citizenship, the results of such decision will lead to the destruction of Native American identity, sovereignty, and the overall goal of decolonization. Native Americans will be viewed as another racial category that can be determined by genetic research rather than a political entity that practices self-governance and self-sufficiency.Overall, Tallbear’s book offers a different perception of Native American identity from a more scientific angle, which may thus transform how identity is discussed across varying disciplines.

[jess · Rating 5 out of 5]

i really can’t recommend this enough... you just have to read it.. i think every premed and everyone interested in home genetics test kits and everyone doing human subjects research should read this!!! kim tallbear is so, SO smart and a really clear writer and doing the indigenous feminist sts that the field desperately needs...

[Owlseyes]

"People think there is a DNA test to prove you are native American. There isn't".
Anthropologist Kim TallBear in the New Scientist

“There’s this really critical distinction between DNA and ancestry on one hand and identity and belonging on the other “
Deborah Bolnick, anthropological geneticist at the University of Connecticut

"She’s a rational, thoughtful, good human being who is doing something that’s bad right now. Be better”.
One member of the Cherokee Nation







Now "we're all Native Americans" someone* said; but Elisabeth Warren is less Native American than the majority of the Americans. Will she get a $1 million donation for charity, from Trump?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/...

*Greg Gutfeld

[Ai Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is frankly worth it for chapter three, "Genetic Genealogy Online," where Tall Bear breaks down the pushback of social scientists by geneticists and other scientists who don't think social science or the humanities are "real work." I would fully frame the entire paragraph on page 122, and literally everyone should read that page, but also read the whole book--the title is maybe a little misleading, and there were moments when the actual science of it overwhelmed me, but ultimately this was such an important book to think about the claims we make about DNA and what knowledge of genetics/genetic testing can let us actually know. It's so well-written and connects across so many fields it's dizzying sometimes, but it's also such an important read, and I want to shove it at every single scientist I see (and frankly anyone talking generally about DNA and what it lets us know.) The explanations about how tribal enrollment can work in various systems was also deeply eye-opening as a white settler, and TallBear talks about those processes with such nuance, so that part in excerpt frankly could be huge for teaching.

[Dasha · Rating 4 out of 5]

While this book's scientific jargon was occasionally confusing for me (I am a mere humanities student), I did really appreciate the historical attention paid to conceptions of blood and identity and how many modern genetic and DNA mapping technologies are shifting Indigenous identity from blood to DNA language. Clearly, replacing one colonial construct for another is problematic even if, as TallBear notes, DNA tests do have some perceived benefits.

[Russell McOrmond · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was a student of Kim TallBear for the first class of a new "Indigenous Peoples and Technoscience" course. I also follow her on Twitter, and hear her regularly on the MEDIA INDIGENA podcast.

She does anthropology of white people, and as a person of Irish, Scottish and French descent living on the lands of the Anishinaabe peoples my entire life it is from this perspective that I really enjoyed this book.

I grew up with the all-too-common belief that the history and related worldviews of Western Europe are universal, and that a focus on individuals is all that is needed to understand the world. Ms. TallBear has been extremely helpful in dispelling that myth for me.

If you are looking for a book to tell you that you are Indigenous based on a distant ancestor, then this is not the book for you. Being Indigenous isn't about your DNA: we don't talk that way about other citizenship and worldviews, and I have to admit to being confused why there is this Western European desire to believe this applies to Indigenous nations and peoples.

[Bjorn Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent, challenging, and illuminating look at the role of bio-sciences and neoliberal agendas as relates to indigenous bodies and lands.

[Completelybanned · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an incredibly important book, a landmark in the decolonization of anthropology broadly and science and technology studies in specific. TallBear's argument may be easy to miss for those feeling uneasy with genetic science or co-production, post-humanistic theory à la Donna Haraway. From one perspective, TallBear's point is that it just does not make sense to talk about Native American DNA. Geneticists are aware of this to varying degrees. Geneticists (mostly white, non-Native) go out into the world and try to find people they consider to be "Indigenous." Geneticists are also looking for "isolated populations" of Indigenous peoples. That is, groups who have not intermarried with their neighbors. The thinking is that isolated populations will tell a more precise story about human evolutionary origins. Then, geneticists collect biological samples from Indigenous peoples, and apply imperfect methods to extract their DNA. The final result is -- an objective statement about Indigenous peoples, their ancestors, and their biology? about who is or is not Indigenous? No! TallBear argues that what geneticists end up with is a picture that reproduces the assumptions they possessed at the beginning (to be expected if you are persuaded by the argument that science is not about mere fact-finding, but typically reproduces a particular paradigm until it is unsustainable). These assumptions are Western, universalizing, and racialize/ethnicize Indigenous peoples, instead of approaching them as a political body that exists due to a particular politico-economic history. These assumptions presume that the story of the Bering strait and humans evolving out of Africa is more real or true than any story that Indigenous peoples can tell about their origins and their place in the world. TallBear offers many intellectual ways out of this problem, and half of the book is devoted to exploring alternative ways of conducting biological/genetic research with Indigenous peoples. A final note, while this book may seem unapproachable or irrelevant to non-academics, TallBear is writing for a lay, Native audience, and anyone interested in the complexity of DNA tests or "pretendianism" might want to pick this book up.

[Bea Croteau · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really interesting book--I highly recommend if you want to read about a complicated but vital topic, if you take part in DNA testing for genealogical research, or want to enter a discussion of Native American sovereignty, identity, and genetic material.
One of the overarching and not subject-specific messages I took away from this book was the importance of contextualizing literally everything (nothing exists in a vacuum). Often genetic research/testing topics were introduced, then contextualized to understand their benefits or consequences for Indigenous communities. This pattern and message became clearer the further into the book I got. Ex: I was intimidated when I opened the introduction and was immediately given dense information to comprehend which almost put me off it, but I powered through and ultimately the context given in the introduction becomes essential for understanding/contextualizing concepts introduced in later chapters.
A couple of the reviews I read of this book disparaged it for being inaccessible in its language, to which I would like to say that TallBear actually addressed that in chapter 3, noting that social science but also any subject with enough nuance and depth can get difficult to comprehend for a casual observer. Yes, I had to look up a lot of the words in the book, yes it took me a week to read while it is only 200 pages, but I believe the material in it made up for it.
Overall, very interesting, I learned a lot, go check it out!!

[Serena · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book took me a long time to work through, as it was heavy and academic but I’m so glad I did. It really spoke to me, as this is an issue I myself as an Indigenous First Nations citizen struggle with understanding and conceptualizing. The science is hard, as is the definition of us as a people, and our ways of belonging beyond dna, yet the way we sometimes are guilty of defining ourselves in terms of blood- and the colonists that settled us and influenced that thinking. I’ve listened to quite a few podcasts by All My Relations discussing blood quantum and tribal membership issues, including the episode with Dr. Kim Tallbear years ago, which was also incredibly fabulous, and which I listened to again while reading this book. I’m so grateful she wrote this and I appreciated her perspective as focusing on the non-native actors and scientists.

[Dylan Cook · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is this book a tad academic? Yes. Is some of the science now a bit out of date? Yes. I don't care.

As a geneticist, I wish everyone in my field read this book. TallBear smartly turns the lens of this analysis towards the actual researchers and hobbyists who study Native American DNA rather than focusing on the DNA itself. I can't stress how important this is. Population genetics, as a field, is fueled by curiosity more than necessity. It's a field that seeks to neatly categorize people into genetic groupings in an attempt to tell them who they are. It's a field that often makes me ask: what's the point? Who does that benefit? TallBear shines a light on the ethical ramifications of doing this kind of research. It's by far the best analysis on this subject I've come across.

[Kaitlin Hubbert Burrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting and informative and very timely given the current sociopolitical climate.

[JC · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ll be back in school again soon, starting a science & technology studies (STS) program in September (which I’m very excited about), and so I have been trying to steer some of my reading towards that end. A lot of books I’ve been through in the past month has tended towards religion, because of some conversations I’ve been having with friends, but I think I will be slowly adjusting back over the summer towards more STS related reading. It was really neat to read this work by Kim TallBear who is an Indigenous studies scholar and an STS academic. Although some of the stuff in here was over my head, and a little more academic than I prefer, the large majority of it was actually fairly accessible and I enjoyed this book a lot.

I've discussed genetic sequencing products and ancestry tests before with friends. I have family who work in private insurance, in the lobbying machinery of a corporation that actively seeks to tear down legislated protections to people's genetic data privacy, claiming that they have a right to use genetic data to factor in whether to accept people into particular insurance programs and using their data to properly calculate risk (and of course maintain a certain level of profit). So genomic technology and research is very much a part of capitalist value extraction. TallBear actually makes fascinating use of Haraway’s work on ‘gene fetishism’ which is a rather interesting spin on Marx’s ‘commodity fetishism’. TallBear describes it in this way:

“By describing the gene as a material-semiotic object of knowledge, Donna Haraway gives us a conceptual alternative to simpler forms of social constructionism and to something she calls “gene fetishism.” Haraway’s explication of gene fetishism informs my analysis of company marketing and spokespersons’ claims about the work that Native American DNA can do. Haraway defines “gene fetishism” in relation to Marx’s notion of commodity fetishism. Marx saw that in the process of exchange, as objects become commodities, they become transcen- dent, evolving almost magically. They become signs in and of them- selves. Commodities come to be seen as autonomous, objective things, obscuring and displacing the social relations between the humans and, Haraway would add, the nonhumans involved in the production of such objects. Gene fetishism also obscures complex interactions between humans and nonhumans. Haraway explains that “gene fetishism . . . is about mis- taking heterogeneous relationality for a fixed, seemingly objective thing.” Although genes, the body, and life itself are actually constituted by many complex interactions between humans and nonhumans, gene fetishism leaves us with an impoverished understanding of DNA as a “master molecule” or as the “the code of life.” The molecule itself comes to be seen as the source of value14 and, in the case of Native American DNA, as a source of identity and potentially, then, a foundation for compelling claims. Far more complex political histories of relations and power in the constitution of Native American bodies, citizenries, and life get obscured, which matters.”

Later in the book TallBear includes a quote from Haraway that explains why she is drawing an analogy from Marx’s treatment of the commodity to her treatment of the gene:

“Commodity fetishism was defined so that only humans were the real actors, whose social relationality was obscured in the reified commodity form. But “corporeal fetishism,” or more specifically gene fetishism, is about mistaking heterogeneous relationality for a fixed, seemingly objective thing. . . . Gene fetishism . . . denies the ongoing action and work that it takes to sustain technoscientific material-semiotic bodies in the world. The gene as fetish is a phantom object, like and unlike the commodity. Gene fetishism involves “forgetting” that bodies are nodes in webs of integrations, forgetting the tropic quality of all knowledge claims.”

I recently read Chapter 7 of Marx’s Capital Vol. 1, and there’s a great introduction Marx provides for his notions of metabolism and human relationality to nature and the instrumentalization of nature with respect to human labour. Haraway has made some of the most interesting (to me) elaboration on Marx’s theory of metabolism in her work on companion species and mutually constitutive relations, and this is a significant area I’d like to explore more in my research starting this September. But of course my area of research is very different. I’m looking to do a sort of environmental history of rivers and hydropower in Ontario, particularly 19th century colonial mills and the eventual shift towards electrical hydropower at the end of that century, and the alienation that electricity permits as an almost universal medium of exchange, similar to the way money is able to function. Commodities like lumber (from deforestation enabled by sawmills) or agricultural mono-crops (grown on newly cleared land) become the type of autonomous god-like figures (able to be made equivalent to the greater universally exchangeable commodity of money) that humans (particularly white settlers) serve and worship by destroying river ecosystems, executing large-scale deforestation, collapsing fish populations, and so on. Though TallBear is studying something so remote from what I intend to research, it is fascinating and also chilling the way science and technology is still being deployed with intentions of Indigenous dispossession. In fact, one of TallBear’s central concerns is the way DNA testing can potentially be used to ‘falsify’ and allegedly ‘disprove’ Indigenous land claims, and open the way for capitalist extraction and destruction, and the furtherance of Indigenous dispossession. Some comments by TallBear:

“…claims to land and self-governance may be denied or justified by the absence or presence of Native American DNA in individual claimants. This may have two effects. First, anti-indigenous interests will have strong ammunition to use against tribes which they already view as beneficiaries not of treaty payments but of special, race-based rights… DNA markers—when there is something tangible to gain—may be used to legitimate claims that contradict and potentially contravene prior tribal claims based in historical treaties, law, and policy, even if the groups that use Native American–DNA analysis do not intend to undermine existing tribal claims and law.”

TallBear’s concerns are not unfounded at all. She provides an example of so-called Kennewick man, where a group of Indigenous tribes had difficulty claiming the remains of this human body for reburial and were required to prove their relationship by way of DNA:

“The so-called Kennewick Man controversy shows the potential for human genome diversity research to challenge indigenous identity claims and rights over human remains. When nine-thousand-year-old remains were found near the Columbia River in Washington State in 1996, the first scientist to examine them, James Chatters, assumed they belonged to a Euro-American settler.37 Carbon-dating analysis soon revealed them to be much older than that, and a group of Native American tribes invoked the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), claiming the remains for reburial.

…The involved scientists hoped to disrupt tribal claims to the re- mains despite their age, by showing that Kennewick Man could not be traced directly to contemporary Native Americans. Before repatriation can occur, NAGPRA requires the “cultural affiliation” of remains with living Native American groups. Specifically, the law requires that a “relationship of shared group identity” must be able to be “reasonably traced historically or prehistorically between members of a present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and an identifiable earlier group”
…The chance that someone living nine thousand years ago has direct genetic descendants living today would be improbable. If we go back only 10 generations, each of us has more than one thousand ancestors. Kennewick Man lived about 450 generations ago. Even if an ancient individual did have direct living descendants, they would likely not be found in the strictly maternal or paternal lineages that can be tested.”

TallBear quotes something Debra Harry and Frank Dukepoo raised in 1998 as part of the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB):

“Scientists expect to reconstruct the history of the world’s populations by studying genetic variation to determine patterns of human migration. In North America, this research will likely result in the validation of the Bering Strait theory. It’s possible these new “scientific findings” concerning our origins can be used to challenge aboriginal rights to territory, resources and self-determination. Indeed, many govern- ments have sanctioned the use of genomic archetypes to help resolve land conflicts and ancestral ownership claims among Tibetans and Chinese, Azeris and Armenians, and Serbs and Croats, as well as those in Poland, Russia, and the Ukraine who claim German citizenship on the grounds that they are ethnic Germans. The secular law in many nations including the United States has long recognized archetypal matching as legitimate techniques for establishing individual identity.”

There are a lot of other fascinating things that this book goes into. Of course racism and race construction is a large part of it, but there’s fascinating stuff on migratory research from Asia into North America and the genetic markers that show up between Asians and Indigenous peoples of the Americas. John McWhorter in a course on language families of the world mentions the similarities between the Siberian language of Kett and the Navajo language for example. What TallBear flags as a concern is both the way migratory research can be weaponized to deny and belittle Indigenous narratives of their own origins as well as reduce people to simply what they were in the past. TallBear writes:

“At this point, the final key narrative comes into play, yet another rendition of “we are what we were.” But in this case, it is not that we are all African. Rather, at another temporal level, Native Americans are really Mongolian. This narrative is accomplished through the device of making the Y chromosome and its geographical journey stand in for the man and his journey.”

I think a point TallBear continues to make goes back to the notion of “gene fetishism” that she borrows from Haraway. That we can be reduced to our genetic material, and that we can rely on genetic information to construct ‘racial’ boundaries. So much of what TallBear brings up throughout the book is how allegedly ‘progressive’ or ‘multicultural’ framings of genetic migration research are in fact replicating old ideas from white-supremacist racial science. There are so many examples of scientists who take genetic samples from Indigenous people for specific research purposes outlined in consent contracts, but go on to use that genetic material for other research, largely migratory research that these Indigenous peoples have not consented towards. And how worse of all, this migratory research has the potential in the future to deny land claims to Indigenous peoples and further the cause of capitalist dispossession. A lot to take in with this book, but it was an important read.

[Barb Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although I got this book wanting to read about the promises of DNA testing for Native American identity, I was very disappointed by the largely negative commentary of the author. Because of the history of Native American displacement, many do not know whether or not they have Native American heritage and do not have any way of finding out unless they have recourse to genealogist or DNA testing. When the first is an impossibility, then DNA testing may be the only answer.
The author appears to dash the hopes of anyone who wants to find out about their origins.

[Vel Veeter]

I don't always feel this way, but I really appreciate how much this book treats its readers as adults. There's a lot of early work in this book that looks to situate itself and its methods, and in doing so, spends an appropriate and generous amount of time explaining to readers (which I found especially useful as an educated person with no particular experience in these topics and methods) explaining how the methods of anthropology were considered, why they were considered, and what limits and allowances these methods were subject to. So in addressing the question of how Native American identity is impacted by the science genetics and DNA, we understand pretty clearly by the end of the introduction what this book will and won't be doing.
For the most part, using power dynamics and its history as guides, this book purports to focus on science and scientists (especially in their connections to larger specific and general institutions) as an upward trajectory, and not at specific Native American groups in this study, except in places where their participation in both the creation and presentation of research allows. Because of the way "research" has been used as a tool for oppression and as an implement of oppression (meaning that the results of research has been employed, but also how the specific research itself as oppressing), this book tries to limit that impact. It's clearly a delicate question that is handled with care.

So the book spends a lot of time looking at DNA science and this has become a new tension in the questions of Native American identity. For one thing, and this book predates the more recent public debates of certain politicians claiming Native status, its looks at DNA science, including public companies, "determine" Native ancestry, what if anything that means, and how it connects to the already fraught and complicated questions of how Native American communities create their own definitions for group membership. It's a thorough book that really highlights the debate and because it's academic, gives a lot of in-depth research and analysis. It doesn't answer all those questions, nor should it, but it gives a lot of ways of understanding that I found really useful in my own thinking.

[elstaffe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting inner chapters, fascinating look at what DNA testing was like in the aughts and how it does and doesn't differ from today, but boy was the intro laying out the sociological/anthropological analysis methodology rough to get through. This book definitely made me think more about why I'm more accepting of technical language in STEM fields than social science fields, but experiencing firsthand specialized language was both alienating ("biotechnosciences" sounds like an in-group cult word) and not helpful. That said, the meat of this book was very worth reading, and I highly recommend it to anyone under the impression that ancestry DNA testing is just science divorced from race.


Pull quotes/notes
"But Native American DNA could not have emerged as an object of scientific research and genealogical desire until individuals and groups emerged as 'Native American' in the course of colonial history. Without 'settlers,' we could not have 'Indians' or 'Native Americans'—a pan-racial group defined strictly in opposition to the settlers who encountered them. Instead, we would have many thousands of smaller groups or peoples defined within and according to their own languages, as Diné, Anishinaabeg, or Oceti Sakowin, for example. It is the arrival of the setter in 1492 and many subsequent settlements that frame the search for Native American DNA before it is 'too late,' before the genetic signatures of the 'founding populations' in the Americas are lost forever in a sea of genetic admixture." (5)

"Scientists who trace human migrations do not tell a story from the standpoint of those peoples who were encountered; they tell a story from the standpoint of those who did the encountering—those who named and ordered many thousands of peoples into undifferentiated masses of 'Native Americans,' 'Africans,' 'Asians,' and 'Indo-Europeans.'" (5)

"Think of Donna Haraway's description of the more general gene as a 'material-semiotic object of knowledge' that 'forged by heterogeneous practices in the furnaces of technoscience.'" (70) I'd rather not, thanks

"Despite claims about scientifically rigorous methods, these are not scientifically rigorous ideas." (86) this is my new favorite sick pop/pseudoscience burn

"With one memorable exception, those who commented at length on the gene-fetishism topic were sure that social-scientific specialty language was simply without intellectual merit. Its use, therefore, was seen as shoving a lack of moral integrity. Why was it acceptable for genomics in and of itself to be complex, but theories about the interplay between several additional complicated realms—genomics and political and cultural economies—must be easy for everyone to understand?" (122)

"...there is a tendency to believe that academic discourse, especially when it is not hard science, is difficult only because it means to obscure and exclude. It is 'elitist' and 'out of touch' because it is not actually useful. I counter that we need precise languages to talk about precise ideas that have derived from specific histories of work, from the development of theories and methods. Those of us in the hard sciences need them. Those of us in the social sciences and humanities need them. I regularly encounter this type of disciplinary chauvinism among academic scientists. Like listers, they often refer to social theory as 'jargon,' as if they should readily understand what it has taken me and other social scientists and humanists years to master. I do not assume that I should readily grasp all of the language used and data introduced in a technical presentation about the genome diversity of oak-tree populations in Northern California. Perhaps they have the false impression that I do this work because it is easier than what they do. The arrogance of that position disheartens me profoundly." (122)

"With American Indian tribes seen as slightly higher on the rungs of the ladder of human evolution than blacks, who were portrayed as falling near the bottom, just above apes, and as largely incapable of further evolution, American Indians were made to represent all of humankind in an early stage of evolution.This enabled a scientific narrative in which whites did not colonize and displace Native peoples but, rather, represented a more evolved form of the same people, 'Americans.' Native Americans were in turn rescripted as the 'vanishing ancestors of their presumably white heirs,' who represented the evolutionary pinnacle." (137)

"Sturm's race shifters, however, employed the hypodescent norm in their identity reckoning, in which 'one drop of Cherokee
blood' renders them Cherokee. They were not interested in their European ancestry and associated traditions. That is because Sturm's subjects viewed whiteness as a malady and Indianness as the cure, or whiteness as emptiness and Indianness as the conversion experience that fulfills." (139)

"In both Harris's and Sturm's analyses, whiteness invokes rights in identity that facilitate control of patrimony, including land, resources, and cultural practices. Sturm's race shifters often recognize their greater choice in their racial identification. Indeed, they represent their choice to be Cherokee as their attainment of a higher 'moral standard' than that of those Cherokee who were born into their Cherokee identity." (139)

"The next chapter, on the Genographic Project, shows how nineteenth-century anthropological logic continues to ground contemporary genetic science, making it possible to imagine indigenous DNA as a constitutive element of contemporary white bodies." (141)

"...'we think there was strong selection operating. Those that survived [an extreme decline in human population after a catastrophic volcanic eruption] were clever enough to travel and leave Africa.' [Spencer] Wells might mean only that humans were clever enough to move elsewhere, but since non-humans migrate as well, 'traveling,' as he put it, doesn't require human intelligence. His statement clearly relates cleverness to the drive to leave Africa." (148)

"...Wells privileges one narrative—connectedness—in selling Genographic to the world while simultaneously being informed by ideas of discreteness and disparity that inform human genome diversity research at each stage. Thus, Wells's hope that greater knowledge of our common ancestors will 'help people to overcome some of the prejudices they might have' seems naive at best." (149)

"Given the goal of indigenous movement—the survival of indigenous peoples as self-determined and self-governing entities—it is unfortunate that Genographic disallows the payment of salaries, 'legal actions,' travel, conferences, and land acquisition with Legacy Fund grants. Genographic's funding of the peoples it studies is restricted to cultural preservation, a not-unimportant factor for indigenous survival. But indigenous cultural survival cannot be abstracted from land and legal standing, unless, of course, one thinks indigenous cultural survival can be abstracted from living peoples, like artifacts stored on shelves in a museum perhaps." (159)

"Tumur Battur takes center stage. Wearing a t-shirt depicting Genghjs Khan, he introduces himself as a Mongolian native and says—with good humor—that his country has a 'very good history of Genghis Khan.' After all, he continues, Genghis Khan made an empire of half the world. He had many wives and children. Tumur closes his short commentary with the idea that many people may be related to the famous ruler. The camera returns to Wells, who laughs at his indigenous guest's description of Genghis Khan's greatness." (161)

"The worry is that projects such as Genographics exist 'only to satisfy the curiosity of Western scientists' yet such discursive practices and power will condition indigenous claims to self-governance and rights to land and resources." (194)

"Indeed, tone collaboration is achieved through the power sharing, continuous two-way sharing of information, and capacity building that come with participatory approach." (197) consensual power exchange, even

"In these scientists' research practices, indigenes are clearly approached as less powerful subjects rather than as knowing co-inquirers. Genographic's work is done on material and conceptual ground that leaves intact older race structures in which modern, rational subject— that is, 'Europeans' and scientists—claim rights and privileges to access the resources of those who are seen as less modern, as fundamentally different, and as less evolved genetically. They then claim the right to tell the only 'true' story of human history—one in which molecular sequences and their migrations around the world stand in for the lives and movements of human beings, beings who are, of course, constituted of proteins but who could never be defined categorically by those proteins." (201)

"Science may disrupt certain long hold doctrines but it has simultaneously been informed and supported by those doctrines and the Western conceptual, political, and materi hegemony they justify. Whether we attempt to disown recognition of these politics as an imposition onto<.I> science or whether we strive to understand how these politics always already condition our scientific practices will make an important difference in whether the genome sciences evolve in more or less democratic ways throughout the twenty-first century." (203)

"I seek those who are willing to battle within their fields to make space for respectful relations with others who are committed to different but equally moving ways of inhabiting this world." (203)

[Sandie Nease · Rating 3 out of 5]

The subject matter of this book is intriguing, and worthy of opening up conversation about. I was afraid to dive into this one at first, but was pleasantly surprised about the approach.

In a society that appropriates Native American culture with such ease, and the common “Cherokee Princess great grandmother” rhetoric that has become a joke within the culture, along with the reality of blood quantum and tribal affiliation, the question of “what exactly makes a person Native American?” does come to the forefront of my mind.

Is it the blood? Is it cultural connection? Would someone that doesn’t have a drop of Native American blood, but was naturalized in tribal culture be considered Native? The example of freed slaves finding solace among local tribes is brought up, for example.

Maybe this is amplified by my mixed heritage and personal struggle with feelings of belonging to a tribe I grew up in but legally have no claim to because of quantum laws. But that’s an issue for me to work out for myself.

The author brought up many great points, but what it all boils down to is: “you can’t take a DNA test and expect to be enrolled into a tribe.”

She goes into the politics behind it all, and points out the flaws of quantum laws, but also explains why they are this way. I can see how some may be confused by the supposed back and forth from the author, but what I got from it was an effort to present this topic without an emotional bias attached.

The reason I have this book three stars despite the fact that I feel like it’s an important topic to discuss, is because I found it repetitive, long winded and that it could’ve been a published essay instead and still got the point across.

I do think if anyone is interested in exploring Native Studies through the eyes of genetics and belonging, this would be a good reference book to have on hand.

[Nikki Walton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good book and it's also a good comparison of blood versus identity. This especially gets complicated for those of us who from the eastern or southeastern tribes. The enslavement of Native Americans complicated this issue of identity as it was gutted from some of our ancestors. Then you can bring in the issue of Five Dollar Indians (white people who paid to get on the Dawes Rolls) while those mixed with black were excluded and can't enroll into the tribe they rightfully belong to by blood. It's so much that goes into this and brings into question what do we accept? Those who belong to us by blood but because of past circumstances lose the culture, the language, and documentation. Or do we accept those that identify as native but are not blood but the result of a lying ancestor. As a Seminole woman it's like a gut punch to the mistakes our ancestors were making because in turn it weakened us, and excluded the rest of our people who truly belonged but are culturally disconnected.

[Timothy F. Stolz Jr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kim TallBear's text applies Donna Haraway's concept of scientific knowledge as the material-semiotic (I think it is from Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto) to DNA and genetics. This is used to demonstrate the falsity and the hegemonic power involved in the United State's federal "tribal membership" that uses blood quantums to determine who is a member of which tribe. Besides the falsity of the project generally speaking that often makes indigenous lives more difficult, the imposition of DNA to tribal membership silences indigenous epistemology, notions of community, and self-determination.

Stylistically, she is also an powerful and gifted writer.

Also there is a nice criticism of Marx.

Just read it.

[emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Certain elements were a bit dated given that it was published in 2013, but the skeleton of Tallbear's arguments holds up really well. This is a must-read for anyone working and doing research in human/statistical/population genetics, molecular anthropology, and genetic genealogy.

[Ruth · Rating 5 out of 5]

The emergence of genetic science has brought a fresh prominence to old racist assumptions. People are reverting to the old idea that science can tell us who we really are, through the new technology of the DNA test. In this book, Tallbear explores these attitudes by looking at how producers and consumers of genetic genealogy describe what they are doing with relation to indigenous people. Her analyses of specific companies, an online discussion list of people researching their own family history this way, and National Geographic's Geneographic project are all placed in relation to recent legal cases about American Indian tribes and genetics. For example, Tallbear discusses several recent cases where scientific researchers asked a tribe for consent to use DNA for one purpose, but then used the genetic material for several other projects without getting more consent.

One thing I kept thinking about throughout the book was how many people in the US have no idea of their origin. This is in large part because of how racism works here. It's so attractive to everyone who has lost their knowledge of family to take a DNA test and get a list of markers that might tell them something about their origins. Yet these tests can only give hints, not conclusive information. Tallbear talks about another anthropologist's research into white people who believe they have native ancestry--and why they always think they are Cherokee. Over the summer we had two visits to our little Jewish community from people who took genetic tests that showed they had Jewish ancestry. Did they? For historically stigmatized groups, self-definition is a critical right. There will always be times when the rights of individuals to self-definition and the rights of the group to self-definition are in conflict. To Tallbear, these moments are fraught with the content of the specifics of the racist ideas leveled against indigenous people: that they don't know themselves as well as white people know them, that white people get to define them.

This was a very valuable book for me. The first time I understood that genocidal attitudes toward native people in the US were an ongoing issue was in the late 1980s when I read a New York Times op-ed by an activist who wanted to get his tribe's bones back from the Smithsonian. As a Jewish kid, raised with the visceral horror of Nazis treating Jewish bodies like objects, I was nauseated by the idea that I'd gone to these kinds of museums. Far from being all scientific and clean, the exhibits I was witnessing were exhumed human remains, taken without permission of living descendants. Suddenly I could see that I was surrounded by racist caricatures of living people who were being harmed.

I'm teaching introductory courses that cover gender, race and class. Essentially I am teaching about something so big that I can never feel like an expert. I keep coming up with definitions of racism. One that works pretty well for me inside my own head is, "racism is a tacit justification to treat some people as though there are no laws or customs to protect them." In general it seems like a good thing for most people to be the subjects of scientific study. If we ignore all the laws and rules when we come to some people (some "populations" as Tallbear scare-quotes the term in the book) it can never be safe for them to be the subject of scientific inquiry. They will always be only objects. Organizations have ignored codified ethical standards in their research of native people and continue to do so. She ends the book with a plea for more native people to go into genetics, to colonize the field from within. Only in this way can science be transformed.

[Rem · Rating 5 out of 5]

"To understand what Native American DNA, it is not enough to discuss simply genetic scientists say they are looking for in their samples...It is also important to look back at how Native American bodies have been treated historically, for knowledge-producing cultures and practices that shaped earlier research continue to influence the way science is done today." pg. 2

"First, this sort of research was and is for the good of knowledge, and knowledge, it was and is supposed, for the good of all, despite complaints by Native Americans then and now about research purposes and methods. Second, the Indians were seen as doomed to vanish before the steam engine of westward expansion. Today, "indigenous peoples" are doomed to vanish through genetic admixture. The idea was then and is now that they should be studied before their kind is no more." pg. 2

"I include the 'DNA profile' as I examine the material and social work that Native American DNA does in the world.... This test has been referred to as a "DNA fingerprint." Within an individual's genome, multiple sets of genetic markers are examined. They act like a genetic fingerprint to identify an individual at a very high probability...When used by US tribes and Canadian first nations as part of conferring citizenship (also called "enrollment"), the DNA fingerprint becomes essentially a marker of Native Americanness." pg. 3

"Technically, the DNA profile promises only to identify an individual or close biological kin relationship. But one must have a basic grasp of several types of complex knowledges simultaneously--molecular knowledges and their social histories, and practices of tribal citizenship--or the DNA profile is likely to be taken as a powerful marker of Native American identity. Those who understand its technical limitations--say DNA-testing-company scientists and marketers--do not have a deep historical or practical understanding of the intricacies of tribal enrollment. Nor do they tend to understand the broader political frame circumscribing their work, how their disciplines have historically fed from marginalized bodies. Tribal folks know these politics and histories well--we live day in and day out with enrollment rules, and we all know about the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)--but we do not know the molecular intricacies of the test. Where knowledge is lacking, gene talk--the idea that essential truths about identity inhere in sequences of DNA--misleads us. DNA tests used by tribes are simply statements of genetic parentage that tribal governments have made regulatory to privilege instead of or along with other forms of parent-child relationship documentation, such as birth of adoption certificates. Tribes increasingly combine DNA tests with longer-standing citizenship rules that focus largely on tracing one's genealogy to ancestors named on "base rolls" constructed in previous centuries. Until now, tribal enrollments have been articulated largely through the symbolic language of "blood." Like many other Americans, we are transitioning in Indian Country away from blood talk to speaking in terms of what is "coded in our DNA" or our "genetic memory." But we do it in a very particular social and historical context, one that entangles genetic information in a web of known family relations, reservation histories, tribal and federal-government regulations." pg. 4

"Native American DNA as it is usually defined refers to molecules that track deep genetic and geographic ancestries (sometimes they code for genetic traits, often not)amplified from blood or saliva--less often from bone or hair--via chemicals and laboratory devices. The concept of Native American DNA is also conditioned by complex software that calculates frequency distributions of markers among different populations of the world from whom biological samples have been taken.
It is the arrival of the settler in 1492.....

[Kennedy Butterfield · Rating 5 out of 5]

Her discussion of limitations in DNA research was tough to get through but she makes great points about how much ancestry gets lost in mtDNA or Y chromosome testing, how most DNA is "noncoding", and how tribes share lots of genetic markers because they interact with each other. There's problems with the entire approach of trying to test DNA of populations because of all the assumptions we've made about which "populations" to study (race = population). We're trying to collect data on "populations" which is very messy because our ideas of populations are informed by race AND populations change all the time as people change ethnic identity, migrate, etc.

The blood vs genetics analysis was an interesting distinction that has alarming implications for policy making. Now that we "understand" genetics, what used to be thought of as "blood" is now "genetics", even though genetic science didn't exist for most of human history and so we're not actually talking about the same thing. She calls this scientific essentialism gene fetishism.

The chapter Genetic Geneology Online was GENIUS, my favorite, so interesting. The science v politics conversation has always felt frustrating to me, and Tallbear articulates so well why these arguments for apolitical science don't work. She makes the observation that genetic scientists don't want to be studied by social scientists because it doesn't benefit them, which is the exact same reason IPCB argues against the power imbalance in DNA research. Prior to reading this book, I've frequently felt frustrated that social science literature is intellectually inaccessible. The genetic science listserv members argue this as well, to which Tallbear refutes that it's important to have precise language to talk about complex social ideas just like it's important to have precise language to talk about complex biological ideas. It still feels a little ick to me for social science research to be so inaccessible because of it's social nature, but I think this is a super good point and I'm changing my mind on this a little (I <3 new perspective).

Also interesting was her note that people on the genetic science listservs would often view themselves as white with Native ancestry which didn't make them not white. This is different from a "race shifter" who takes an online DNA test and then identifies as Cherokee. I did not leave this book fully understanding DNA, but I find that observation very telling and disappointing how real genetic science is being used to propagate unscientific claims about identity (also would it even make sense for "identity" to be scientific?)

The last chapter is a super constructive vision for better research methods. She talks about "DNA on loan" practices so that Indigenous Peoples have property rights to their DNA and get consent for every new research project each time, group consent before individual consent, and incorporating Indigenous knowledge instead of "respecting it."

Overall epic book. Super well written and loaded with important ideas, not just about DNA but about how we think and how we conduct research generally.

[Cath Ennis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone who works in or around the field of human genetics should read this book.

It's not a light read - it's pretty dense, and I had to look up some unfamiliar terms as I'm not used to reading texts from this field - but it's always valuable to see your own field from an unfamiliar perspective, and especially so in this case. Tallbear examines how genetics-based thinking has infiltrated various fields of academic research, the public consciousness, and the legal sphere - for example, in determining who qualifies for tribal membership in the US.

A quote that sums up the main theme:

Although genes, the body, and life itself are actually constituted by many complex interactions between humans and nonhumans, gene fetishism leaves us with an impoverished understanding of DNA as a "master molecule" or as "the code of life". The molecule itself comes to be seen as the source of value and, in the case of Native American DNA, as a source of identify and potentially, then, a foundation for compelling claims

Tallbear discusses the scientific and sociological limitations of DNA marker-based ancestry testing; the rise of for-profit direct-to-consumer DNA testing companies, some with links to Mormonism (with implications for the practice of converting Native Americans to that religion); and presents in-depth analyses of the conversations on a specific list-serv dedicated to genealogical research, as well as a specific human diversity project ("The Genographic Project", with which I was not familiar). Some of the latter parts are a bit outdated now, as testing technology and social media have both advanced and the project cycle has moved on, but these specific examples are easily generalizable to the field as a whole. There are also several personal anecdotes of attending scientific conferences, including an encounter with a scientist who was outraged that Tallbear was '"imposing" politics onto genetics".

Tallbear ends with a look at the CIHR's Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal People and subsequent Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, with which I am very familiar. It was nice to see confirmation that Canada is making some positive steps in this sphere, although obviously we still have a long way to go.

[Samantha Sarkar · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked up this book as part of a rabbit hole I went down after reading A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Stories in Our Genes. This was a bit of a mistake as this is by no means casual reading. It is a dense, sombre, academic tome analyzing various gene testing companies, genetics conferences and research projects and their social, legal and spiritual impact on Native American identity. In that sense I probably shouldn't even rate the book as I am not an academic expert in the field.

Admittedly, it was also a challenging read for me as a scientist. The author kept referring to "fetishizing" DNA, and one of the author's central themes was "co-production/ co-constitution" of knowledge with culture and politics, while scientists are trained to try and separate these. However, there were interesting discussion points which, for me, provoked thought and learning, such as:
-legal implications of genetic testing as part of the complex milieu of regulations that govern processes for tribal registrations in North America
- The impact of early human population migration narratives vs. indigenous creation stories and their relationship to the land "since time immemorial."
-Research ethics and consent processes, and more equitable systems for biological sample collection and management.
-Colonial influences on how research is done: Native American DNA as the "property right" of settlers and another "natural resource" to extract.

Ultimately, the author's concluding sentiment on the field of genetics is that it claims to end racism, but "greater knowledge hasn't even killed the desire of scientists to seek discreteness and disparity between human groups, and that would seem a simpler task." This personally raises a few hairs on my neck, as it seems unfair to conflate the methodological necessities of sample labelling with a "desire" of scientists to "seek disparity", but I suppose it is healthy to read something that challenges your worldview every once in a while.

[Abby]

This book is old enough at this point that it should not read like it was written for this exact moment. The list-serv-based genealogy communities Tallbear analyzes are long gone, moved to other platforms, but her observations about them are as germane as the day she typed them out. In everything I’ve read, I’ve consistently admired Tallbear’s critical mind, which always aims the methods of social science and cultural studies toward practical takeaways for tribal organizations. The specific takeaway here is for tribes to be wary of genetic study’s usefulness for their citizenship quandaries. More broadly, though, Tallbear is insightful about the culture of science, its entanglements with industry, and the way genetics get used literally and metaphorically in popular (Native American) culture. Her introductory comments explaining the way she positions herself are also incredibly helpful for thinking about methods in social science, and even in writing more generally. Genetic science is quite different than it was 20 years ago, but this book proved more timeless than we might have hoped.

Tallbear mentions a few times the way the word “population” gets substituted where “race” might have been used in the past, and I wish she had dug into that the way she does into the “blood” vs. “gene” interchange. Because when it’s defined explicitly, population is quite a useful word that can apply to many scales of inquiry. From a genetics perspective, population is just a group of people who share offspring…which is partly geographical, sure, but boy oh boy are there cultural forces guiding that outcome that have nothing to do with happening to live on the same continent. I still wish we could find good language for these things, words that are comprehensible but less prone to reproducing bad racial logics. The most we can do, maybe, is what Tallbear does, to simply be observant of our instincts.

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

I expected this book to offer a technical & policy-based analysis of the use of genetic testing in Native American communities. Instead, I largely got a hybrid, cultural studies/anthropological discussion of the idea of Native American DNA and how that idea is interpreted by non-Native genealogists and genetic testing companies. While that is undoubtedly of interest to many readers, I am not one.

The book is also written in a ponderous, academic style. Although at some points, the book claims a desire to offer useful analysis to Indian Country policy makers, it is clear that goal is not primary. I have no doubt this work contributes much to academic discourse, but what I learned from it was gleaned only with much tedious effort.

That all being said, there are useful nuggets of introduction to the technical aspects of DNA testing which I found valuable. The citations were also valuable.

[Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I rate this 3.5 out of 5.

I listened to this audiobook with Audible.

Brief Summary: Tallbear examines the application of DNA science including an overview of the science and its general applications. In several chapters, she then focuses on the problematic usages of DNA science regarding Indigenous genetic affiliation.

Thoughts: This book was interesting, although certain parts were academically dense. It is a good read if you are interested in learning more about the general application of DNA testing and its specific implications for Tribal Nations. Tallbear highlighted many scientific pitfalls and clarified how these pitfalls need more detailed consideration before specific claims can be made, particularly by genealogy websites.

Content Warnings
Graphic: Genocide, Blood, Medical content, and Colonisation