In a time when Indigenous identity is both sacred and politicized, the misuse of ancestry claims carries real-world consequences.

In Newfoundland, where land rights, consultation authority, and federal funding often hinge on cultural and genealogical identity, even one false claim can ripple outward.

Recently, Jasen Benwah — formerly known as Jasen Benoit, Chief of Benoit First Nation — posted what appeared to be DNA evidence to his Facebook profile, on Friday, July 25th, 2025. The image suggested he was 98% Indigenous American and biologically related to a person labeled “LB,”.

It didn’t take long for someone to challenge the post. Shortly afterward, it disappeared. But not before it was saved by multiple individuals, including Douglas Jones and Denis Benoit, both of whom are willing to publicly confirm the post’s contents and the fact that it came directly from one of Benwah’s Facebook accounts before being deleted.

The Screenshot: Red Flags Everywhere

The image posted by Jasen Benwah claimed a 250 centimorgan (cM) match across 14 segments with a person labeled “LB.” This level of shared DNA is typically associated with 2nd cousins or 1st cousins once removed — not close immediate family.

For reference:

• Full siblings usually share 2,300–3,400 cM
• Half-siblings still share 1,300–2,300 cM

A 250 cM match is biologically distant. Yet the way the image was presented — alongside claims of 98% Indigenous ancestry — appeared to imply a close familial relationship, at least in the eyes of the audience. If not intended, that impression was never corrected before the post was taken down.

Other red flags in the screenshot include:

• 98% Indigenous American for Jasen Benwah
• 89% French and 4% Indigenous for LB
• An ethnicity category labeled “Viking”
• A profile join date of July 24, 1906 — decades before DNA testing existed

No major DNA platform uses “Viking” as a standalone ethnicity. No platform assigns join dates from the early 20th century. And the idea that two people closely connected to a shared identity claim could show dramatically divergent results raises further doubts.

These aren’t minor errors. They are either deliberate misrepresentations or a careless display of data misunderstood and misused in a public forum — one tied to cultural credibility and political gain.

The Witnesses

Both Douglas Jones and Denis Benoit have confirmed the post was live on Jasen Benwah’s Facebook timeline before it was removed. Each saved the image, and both are willing to go on record about what they saw.

They are not activists or agitators — they are locals. They know the players, the history, and the stakes.

In any legitimate investigative setting, this would constitute evidence of material misrepresentation.

The “Just Joking” Defense

At this point, Jasen Benwah may try to brush off the post as a joke — something not meant to be taken seriously. That’s the fallback when the truth doesn’t hold: pretend it was satire.

But this tactic is well-known in social psychology. Humor is often used as a shield for deeply held beliefs — a tool of plausible deniability when someone wants to test public reaction without owning the consequences.

As sociologist Michael Billig wrote in Laughter and Ridicule, humor “functions as a subtle but powerful tool of social exclusion, status assertion, and ideological reinforcement — especially when disguised as ‘just joking.’”¹

Similarly, a 2014 study by Ford and Ferguson found that offensive humor increases tolerance for prejudice by lowering people’s defenses.² When people laugh at something they’d otherwise resist, it normalizes the message beneath it.

In other words, what’s said as a joke might actually be exactly what someone believes — just packaged for public digestion.

Benwah’s “joke,” if that’s what he calls it, wasn’t harmless. It wasn’t even funny. It was a strategic signal — a way of testing what he could get away with. And when called out, he deleted it. That’s not a punchline. That’s a tell.

Stakeholders and Soft Power

The danger isn’t just in what was said. It’s in who orchestrated it — and who stood to gain from going along.

Jasen Benwah is himself aligned with stakeholder figures like John Risley, whose model of federal consultation and economic realignment serves top-down governance disguised as grassroots inclusion. Benwah has willingly positioned himself as a conduit in that system.

And while not all of his supporters may share that agenda, many are there for one reason: the benefits.

Whether it’s funding, status, access, or just being on the “right” side of the room, a portion of the membership remains quiet because they’re being rewarded for their silence. The performance is protected — not by consensus, but by incentive.

If you supported him because he made you feel culturally covered, ask yourself: was it really about truth — or about what you were getting from it?

Because silence isn’t neutral when it shields the machinery of power.

Manufactured Consensus and the Illusion of Legitimacy

One of the most effective tricks in manipulation is to appear popular. Not actually be right — just be seen as supported. When someone surrounds themselves with loyalists, peers, or compliant friends who validate every move, it creates the illusion of consensus — what psychologists call the False Consensus Effect.

This is when people overestimate how widely their beliefs are shared — and how “normal” they must be, simply because no one’s pushing back.

In public discourse, especially in small or closed communities, this tactic becomes strategic. Surround yourself with enough people willing to nod along, and you can legitimize anything — even junk DNA claims. The social proof becomes the substance. And outsiders, even those with facts, are made to look like outliers.

As researchers like Ross, Greene & House (1977) showed, people assume their views are common when they see even limited agreement — especially if that agreement is visible. And when no one in the circle questions a false claim, others begin to internalize it as true — or at least, not worth challenging.

“The visibility of supportive opinions leads individuals to conclude that their beliefs are widely shared, regardless of objective reality.”³

This is the power behind Jasen Benwah’s support circle — not what they know, but what they pretend to know. By continuing to show up, defend him, or enable him — they don’t just stand behind him. They elevate the lie.

Silence, Support, and the Private Story

What’s almost more troubling than the post itself is how many people turn a blind eye to such behavior. In small-town politics and local activism, people often protect their own, even when the facts don’t add up. They excuse inconsistencies, wave away criticism, and build loyalty around personality instead of principle.

But let’s be honest: enabling this behavior makes you part of the machinery.

Supporting someone who publicly posts junk science to claim 98% Indigenous identity — and deletes it when questioned — is not “unity.” It’s complicity. And the people defending it need to ask themselves: what exactly are they defending?

Because if this is what he’s willing to post publicly, imagine what he’s saying privately — in messages, in small group chats, behind closed doors.

When someone jokes about identity, legitimacy, or race, it often reveals what they truly believe. Psychologists call this “humor-based truth leakage” — the idea that jokes are a safe way to express beliefs one wouldn’t dare say outright.⁴ And when the post gets deleted, it’s not because it was meaningless. It’s because it meant too much.

So ask yourself: What kind of leader needs to hide what he posts?

What kind of “truth” is only allowed to exist for a few hours, and only if no one questions it?

The Larger Pattern

This isn’t the first time Jasen Benwah has blurred the lines between personal identity, public positioning, and institutional credibility.

In 2015, I filed an official complaint after Benwah hired someone from outside the band for a position funded under an Indigenous heritage journalism initiative. The hire did not meet the advertised qualifications, nor the cultural eligibility implied by the program. At the time, this decision appeared to violate the band’s own bylaws.⁵

Rather than address the complaint, Benwah returned at that year’s AGA and changed the bylaws with member support — effectively retrofitting the rules to match the decision. This pattern of reversing norms to suit desired outcomes has defined his leadership ever since.

Over a year later, I approached him again — this time with a serious offer to participate in a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) research project to trace verified maternal Indigenous ancestry. As someone who carries that lineage myself, I saw value in documenting it correctly. He feigned disinterest.

Despite his reluctance to engage with legitimate verification, Benwah has continued to position himself as a cultural representative in public discussions. Now, with his own DNA claims falling apart under scrutiny, the contradictions in that narrative are more visible than ever.

Final Word

Let’s be clear: Identity fraud is not a harmless error. It’s a power grab, a funding grab, and a cultural violation.

This article is the beginning of a trail — one that others are free to follow, fact-check, and expand upon. The image may be gone from Facebook, but the evidence remains. And so do the witnesses.

When identity is weaponized, silence is complicity.

References

[1] Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour. SAGE Publications.

[2] Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2014). Social Consequences of Disparagement Humor: A Prejudiced Norm Theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313504134

[3] Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The False Consensus Effect: An Egocentric Bias in Social Perception and Attribution Processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279–301.

[4] Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in Communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310–331.

[5] Simon, H. (2015). Letter of Complaint Regarding Hiring Practices of Benoit First Nation. PDF available at: Download PDF