Remember Michael Ignatieff, whom Canadians rejected for being an out-of-touch “American” Ivy League elitist?

Remember the furor over former governor-general Michaëlle Jean’s dual Canadian/French citizenship?

To that mix add the controversy of Giller Prize-winning author Joseph Boyden’s questionable indigenous ancestry.

We demanded adherence to single national identities from Ignatieff and Jean, anything beyond simply ‘Canadian’ raised suspicions of their loyalties, but of Boyden we seem to have a shifting line in the sand.

Only Boyden knows the truth about his heritage. On record are claims he has made over the years to various indigenous communities. An investigation by APTN found none could be backed up or verified, meaning the media’s favourite indigenous spokesman is likely a privileged white guy who used up space and awards and grants earmarked for indigenous artists (all of which he recently denied).

Racial and ethnic identities are like religious identity, a tricky, fluid business. Is a person Christian because they go to church? Or is it because they behave in a Christian manner? Can they be Christian because they believe they are? Or do they have to be formally accepted by a designated leader?

A statement by Boyden on Wednesday did not make matters any clearer.

He offered this about himself, “a white kid from Willowdale with native roots,” which takes us exactly nowhere.

The authenticity of Boyden’s roots is between him and the indigenous people of this land. It is for them to sort out whom he claims and which communities claim him.

Its effect on the rest of the people is related to concerns over the authenticity of his writing and a perceived loss of authority over his subject matter.

The prolonged debate surrounding the integrity of such a prominent public figure should bother us all, though.

Given how quickly conversations become polarizing, especially within social media echo chambers, you would expect indigenous commentators to be frothing at the mouth at what many are saying is a case of cultural identity theft.

Instead, it’s the outsider commentators — journalists, publishers and friends of Boyden who are acting affronted.

A particularly belittling piece in the Globe and Mail used the racially charged violent term “lynching” to describe the rather polite verbal outcry against a white man. As in, “Mr. Boyden’s lynching should set off alarm bells in this regard.”

That the Globe originally also ran the word in the headline is a good example of the tone-deafness resulting from mono-cultural newsrooms, but I digress. It did make up for that with a series of articles by indigenous writers.

Sometimes the best prescription is to shut up and listen.

But no. Commenters waded into the tricky issue of native identity without taking into context years of indigenous discussions on this topic. They made it about “blood quantum” and DNA testing, which indigenous people have often said is irrelevant.

The establishment closed ranks around its man, confusing talent with character.

“We’re not going to rescind an invitation to the festival to a great writer over something like this,” an Ottawa writers’ festival director told the Globe, echoing others who said it would be business as usual with the author.

For many, the “something like this” is betrayal.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Let’s be clear. Boyden’s writing skills are not being challenged. Boyden’s freedom to write indigenous stories is not being questioned, either.

Why did Canadians reject Ignatieff’s “Americanness” and Jean’s French citizenship? Because they assumed that it hinted at divided loyalties that would render them incapable of understanding and representing Canadian interests.

Boyden was vocal and active about indigenous issues, increasingly involved in Reconciliation. “To indigenous people, Boyden is not just a novelist; he is a politician,” says First Nations writer Robert Jago in the Walrus.

I don’t believe dual citizenships or multiple ethnic identities dilute loyalty or affect understanding. The opposite is true. A wider perspective brings more empathy, not less.

In this case, though, it’s not about Boyden having multiple identities, it’s about how they keep shifting — Mi’kmaq here, Ojibwe there, Nipmuc elsewhere, with more such claims he has made emerging. It would be the equivalent of Jean saying she has Canadian citizenship, and French, um, no Haitian, err, Belgian. Credibility much?

Who is Boyden? Does he have a right to speak for the groups he eloquently writes about?

In his words, no. “I’ve become too much of a go-to guy, and I should be allowing those with deeper roots in their communities to speak for their communities. I’m pulling back and saying ‘no, others need to speak.’ ”

By all accounts, Boyden shone a needed spotlight on native issues and acted in its interest. It doesn’t sound like anybody is looking to ostracize him. “There is room in our circle for Joseph Boyden,” Anishinaabe politician Wab Kinew said in an article.

“Numerous elders have begun to reach out to me and invite me into their circles,” Boyden himself says.

How fortunate is Boyden to know that if he wronged entire communities, or trivialized their struggles, those that are distressed will still hold his hand.

The sorry saga inflicted pain, but, please, not on the person being protected by a circle of privilege.

Affinity to his work might make him a sympathetic character, but let’s not treat him like the victim.

Shree Paradkar tackles issues of race and gender. You can follow her @shreeparadkar