Social Profiles as Regalia

David Harris

Amstd475-01

Professor Plemons

1/12/15

                Kristin Arola discusses social profiles as form of regalia in “It’s My Revolution: Learning to See the Mixedblood”. Arola self-identifies herself as a mixed blood Native American. It is clear that she recognizes that this places herself in a polarizing position. Arola writes about the complicated definition of being an American Indian in today’s American culture. The “federal government recognizes someone as Indian(1/4)…to be recognized as Indian by a non-Indian generally physical attributes or adornments… to be recognized as Indian by another Indian…often depends on who you know, where you grew up…” (Arola 213). Arola identifies that she does not perfectly fit into a “neatly decided racial category” (Arola 215). To Arola, the mixedblood Indian must be seen and represented—not as Indians but as mixed.  Arola then argues that the new way of seeing mixedblood Indians in the modern world is through the online identities that are created. This online representation is a regalia—outfit worn by powwow dancers that represents their identity. Just as one’s social profile can change, so can a regalia as it represents there past and present.

                I believe that Arola is writing this article to those of the pure blood Native American or those who are not Native American. She provides a multiple reasons as to why those of mixedblood are in a undefined racial category. Arola’s goal seemed to be to convince others to not jump first to judgment and instead empathize and learn. This text adds to the conversation we have been having in class as to the power of the internet. So far we have talked mainly how the internet is not “The Great Equalizer” (quotes and capitalization for dramatic effect). Instead it can create cybertypes and create an assumed whiteness. I would say that Arola takes a positive spin on the internet as it can be used and critiqued as a new form of identity that cannot be separated from our real world one. I would say that instead of looking it as an equalizer or a cybertyper, Arola approaches social profiles as expressions of self. There is nothing wrong with an authentic, personalized representation of you. If you don’t want to show everything, that is also okay.

                I would disagree with Arola that your online identity is tied to your offline one. There have been many cases when humans have misrepresented themselves online. One example is the incident with the former Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te’o. In this situation, Te’o created a believed-to-be authentic relationship with a woman online. It was later revealed that the girl and relationship was a hoax. This is an example of when someone’s identity online was not fixed with theirs offline. Another example is the show Catfish. If you have never seen the show, watch this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XicfY8iHzuE . The imposter in the show admits that he made up a fake profile in order to rid the world of adulterers or cheaters.  There is an admitted no connection of identity by the man between himself and the profile.  I think that Arola provides an interesting view of social profiles by comparing it to regalia, however, I don’t believe it is as smooth of an analogy as she believes.