NAFPS Forum

Odds and Ends => Etcetera => Topic started by: BlackWolf on March 26, 2009, 05:19:05 am

Title: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: BlackWolf on March 26, 2009, 05:19:05 am
I don’t know if the issue of “State Recognized Tribes” has ever been discussed before in debt as a topic.  I know a few State Recognized Tribes have been mentioned, but I want to go into the question of “Are they legitimate or not?”   It kind of ties into the other thread “you aint indian if you get kicked out of your tribe.” These groups ( State Recognized Tribes ) self identify themselves as tribes. What is everyone’s opinion on the word “Tribe?”  We’ve talked a lot about what makes an Indian an Indian, but what makes a Tribe a Tribe?  Or a Nation a Nation?   

And are these groups Tribes, or are only Federally Recognized Tribes considered Tribes?  Some legitimate tribes may have even fallen through the cracks.  But, I think the word State Recognized Tribe has its problems.

Another Question?  Can a group break off from their homeland and form a new Nation?  This also ties into the above mentioned forum.

In a way, State Recognized Tribes have official recognition in the sense that State Governments Recognize them.  I noticed other people say that “if your community recognizes you, then that is all that counts”. And I even said this myself before.   Well, if members of State Recognized Tribes are recognized by their communities (which they are), then would that make them who they say they are?  Who defines what or who is, or is not, a community?  A question that came up in the other forum also.

For example; in regards to enrolled members of  the “Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama”.  ( I’m not signaling them out, just the first one I thought of )   Should they be considered Cherokees?  These people and their tribe are even located in Historic Cherokee Territory in Northeast Alabama.  And they say they are the descendants of those Cherokees that never left.  Also, most if not all of these people would be considered PODIAS ( Both racially and culturally ).

In my tribe, I recognize all my fellow tribal citizens as my people by blood, regardless of their BQ.  However, with that said, in my opinion a Full Blood Traditional Community is the backbone of any tribe.  And, it is where all members of a Tribe come from at one point in time or the other, no matter how far removed a Tribal Citizen may be.  Our Traditional people and Elders are the ones that carry the Traditions and Wisdom of our tribe, and without them, part of us would die.   So they should always be held in the highest regards. 

So this is my other problem with State Recognized Tribes.  Their full blood traditional people and community has been lost to time.   

But by now, many State Recognized Tribes have their own self proclaimed Elders who recognize their fellow Tribal Members as their people.  And whatever we may think about that, both the Elders of that tribe and their tribal members believe strongly in their identity.

And although they do  not have Federal Recognition, it is recognition from an Official State Government.  And even the “Indian Arts and Crafts Act” allows them to sell and label their Craft Work as Indian Made.  I have my problems with these groups for a variety of reasons.  Its not as to whether or not they have Indian blood as I’m sure some of the stories of Cherokee ancestors walking off the trial, or not leaving, or of being adopted by whites, etc. are in fact true stories.  (Not all though).  My contention is that they are not a sovereign People as Federally Recognized Tribal Members are.  Meaning Federally Recognized Tribes have been sovereign since time immemorial and the US Government merely recognizes that.  Descendants of people that lived 200 years ago and who never maintained a Tribal Identity since then, can ‘t just appear all of a sudden, and claim to be a Sovereign people of the Tribe they claim.

I don’t know about all State Recognized Tribes, as I’m sure some really do have Continuous Tribal Governments like a few tribes on the East Coast.  And like I said, some may have even fell though the cracks.

My other problem with them, is that a lot of the State Recognized Tribes require no proof whatsoever of Native American Ancestry, and sometimes all that is needed is a signature from the Governor.  In other words, no one can prove nor disprove these people’s claims.  Also, from what I see, in most cases,  the ways they follow do not accurately portray the Tribes that they claim, as can be seen with the numerous State Recognized  Cherokee Tribes.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: koyoteh on March 26, 2009, 07:13:56 am
so many different ways the words tribes, nations , and clans are used it makes my head spin.

now i'm just sticking to 'my people' or 'our peoples' or 'group' or 'circle'.
over here in L.A. we use the term 'circle' a lot. Its very specific though. No details. but I like that one.

A lot of those words like tribes an clans and others came from europe and our european language words specific to their way of life. From what I hear, not that i undestand anymore, the defs are real different.

but stil , useful words to generalize as a point of reference when we speak. We pretty much know what we mean when we use these words.

I wanna say fuck it, but maybe its something important to figure out.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: LittleOldMan on March 26, 2009, 09:02:45 am
I did some quick research  copied this from the Alabama Indian affairs web site Statutory Authority: Code of Ala. 1975, § 41-9-702.

History: Filed April 5, 1985. Amended: Filed April 5, 1995; effective May 10, 1995.



475-X-3-.03 Criteria For Recognition As A Tribe, Band Or Group.

(1) Petitioner must meet all criteria as specified in this section.

(2) Petitioner must present a list of at least two hundred and fifty (250) members of the tribe, band, or group (list must be inclusive by name and addresses), unless this requirement is waived by an affirmative vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the membership of the commission.

(3) Petitioner must present evidence that each of its members is a descendent of individuals recognized as Indian members of an historical Alabama tribe, band, or group found on rolls compiled by the federal government or otherwise identified on other official records or documents. Ancestry charts for each member citing sources of documentation must accompany the petition. Each chart must bear the notarized signature of the individual to whom it pertains. Photocopies of such documentation shall be made available to the commission upon request.

(4) Petitioner must present satisfactory evidence that its members form a kinship group whose Indian ancestors were related by blood and such ancestors were members of a tribe, band or group indigenous to Alabama. This evidence may be the equivalent of the ancestry charts required in Section 3 above.

(5) The petitioner must swear or affirm the following:

(a) No individual holding or eligible for membership in a federally or state recognized tribe, band or group may be accepted for membership in the petitioning group.

NOTE: This requirement is for the protection of members of federally or state recognized tribes who might otherwise forfeit services by becoming members of a non-recognized tribal group.

(b) That the criteria used by the petitioner in determining eligibility of individuals for membership includes but is not limited to the requirement of kinship through Indian ancestors who were members of a tribe indigenous to Alabama.

(6) Evidence must be presented that the petitioning tribe, band or group has been identified with a tribe, band or group from historical times (200 years) until the present as "American Indian" and has a currently functioning governing body based on democratic principles.

(7) Petitioner must include a statement bearing the notarized signatures of the three highest ranking officers of the petitioning tribe, band or group certifying that to the best of their knowledge and belief all information contained therein is true and accurate.

Author: Criteria Committee Draft modified and adopted by Alabama Indian Affairs Commission.

Statutory Authority: Code of Ala. 1975, § 41-9-702.

History: Filed April 5, 1985. Emergency amendment filed August 28, 1985. Permanent amendment filed November 5, 1985.



475-X-3-.04 Criteria For Recognition As An Indian Association.

(1) To be recognized as an Indian association, the petitioner must show at least a ninety percent of its enrolled members are Indian. The remaining members may be either Indian or non-Indian or members of tribes, bands or groups not recognized by the state or federal government.

(2) Petitioner must present to the commission the association's membership list including the names and addresses of all members and the designated tribal affiliation of its Indian members.

(3) A copy of the bylaws and constitution or purpose clause of the petitioning group must accompany said petition and be received by the commission.

(4) The petitioner must swear or affirm that at least ninety percent of its membership is Indian. No petition shall be granted a hearing where it is shown that the association, its bylaws, or purpose clause is contrary to public policy.

Author: Criteria Committee Draft modified and adopted by Alabama Indian Affairs Commission.

Statutory Authority: Code of Ala. 1975, § 41-9-702.History: Filed April 5, 1985.  There is only one Fed Tribe in Al the Poarch Creek located in Atmore.  There are several state recognized tribes.  Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw.  From what I have seen first hand some are junk some are no more than heritage clubs and a few do try to follow the right path.  One that I know of interacts with the EB in a regular basis as well as the CNO.  One of their members runs a language imersion school in Ok.  State Tribes some good some not.  In some cases they serve a need but they need to be watched from a cultural basis by authoritive Elders to insure that variences fron correct tradition do not occur. "LittleOldMan"

Online
Report | Edit | Quote
#21 Jan-24-2008 02:09:
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: bullhead on March 26, 2009, 02:24:34 pm
here is a link where you can look at the complete criteria for alabama state recognition.
http://www.aiac.state.al.us/documents/admincode475-x-3.doc
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: earthw7 on March 26, 2009, 08:15:55 pm
I hit the send buttom by mistake.

koyoteh names are important.
Each Nation-Oyate is divided in to different groups
In my nation we call them
the Oyate-Nation/The people
Tiwahe is the immediate nuclear family
mother, father, children, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousin, inlaws is a family
Tiospaye is many tiwahe-related by families, adoption and friendship
Our Oyate is divided into Bands
Lakota
seven bands
Dakota
Four bands
Nakota
three bands
as would be the Dine when they are divided into their clan systems.

There are some State Recoginzed tribes that are legitimate, they were recogized by the States before the Treaty system was started.
There are some tribe that have been removed from their homeland but still are tribal nations such as the people in Oklahoma.

I don't think we can just make a blanket statement about this issues.

There are some who claim to be state reconginzed that has no tribal
background, they have some made up claim to who they are.
There are other who are native who are struggling to get recognization that
are native.

It is one of those subject where one size does not fit all.

We have to sort out which is real and which is not.
 





Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: BlackWolf on March 26, 2009, 09:31:09 pm
Quote
I don't think we can just make a blanket statement about this issues.

I agree with this.  I am aware of the issues facing certain State Recognized Tribes that are clearly Tribes. 


Also, sometimes tribes can’t adhere to strict BIA standards.  Like for example the Lumbee Tribe in NC.  Are they Indian?  Yeah, they are.  Some of them mixed with blacks and whites, but their still Indian.  And some say they are a mixture of different tribes like the Tuscaroras and Cherokee.   I think they have some kind of recognition from congress but not from the BIA.  So, should they be recognized as a tribe or should they be just Recognized as Indian people.  I think that is the controversial question in that case. 


Quote
There are some who claim to be state recognized that has no tribal
background, they have some made up claim to who they are.
There are other who are native who are struggling to get recognition that
are native.

When a State Recognized Tribe requires no proof of ancestry, its hard to figure out who’s claims are legitimate and whose are not.  And if their ancestors did their best to hide their heritage, then it would be hard for anyone 200 years later to prove it.

But even if a group of people have Tribal background, that does not necessarily mean that they can just go off and form their own tribe somewhere else.  They can form a heritage group, which is basically what some of the State Recognized Cherokee Tribes are. 

It would be like a group of 200 Lakotas moving on their own to New York and their decendents started their own tribe 50 years later.  ( In the case of Oklahoma, whole nations were displaced, and it was a different story.)  In that case the whole Nation and its government were displaced.  In the case of the Cherokee descendants in Alabama.  Their ancestors chose to stay, while the ones that went to Oklahoma chose to stay with their Nation.  Like Koyoteh mentioned before, no one knows the reasons why people do or did what they did.  They were rough times back then.  But sometimes we are held accountable  for our ancestors decisions. 
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: earthw7 on March 27, 2009, 12:34:48 am
 heritage group are not native tribes
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Rattlebone on March 27, 2009, 01:54:09 am

 I got the feeling that this conversation is going to turn into the same one that was on Indianz.com, when that Guardian woman and a few others who are not educated on the subject were trying to make it seem as if state recognized tribes are all frauds and fakes.

 That is simply not true. There are some groups of frauds and people with very questionable claims to native ancestry running around trying to start up their own tribes. I am hearing that some of those states in the south are sorta recognizing these people, but are in reality recognizing them as  heritage groups like Earth pointed out, which are not tribes by no stretch of the imagination.

 There are however a lot of state recognized tribes with legitimate claims to who they are, that have never received federal recognition. Some of them may never get this recognition because the Feds need to change how they do things.  Still once a state gives recognition there seems to be a much greater chance the feds will as well. Not always, but from what I read and hear, it seems to be that way.

 Just a few days ago the state of Texas officially recognized the Lipan Apache. Anyone who knows anything about those people can tell you that they are a real tribe, and their members are very much the real deal. I have friends in that tribe, and I have met a number of their members over the years. I personally know without doubt that those people are exactly who they say they are.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: BlackWolf on March 27, 2009, 02:18:44 am
Quote
There are however a lot of state recognized tribes with legitimate claims to who they are, that have never received federal recognition. Some of them may never get this recognition because the Feds need to change how they do things.  Still once a state gives recognition there seems to be a much greater chance the feds will as well. Not always, but from what I read and hear, it seems to be that way.

I agree with this.  There's the real historic tribes that are State Recognzied and then the ones that just appeared in the last 20 or 30 years, which are labled as State Recognzized Tribes but are really just heritage groups.  I guess some states do it for political reasons or federal dollars, etc.  My problem is with the ones I mentioned above.  Just people that say their ancestors were Cherokee or Indian and they petition their State Legislator or Goveronor for their State Status.  I know the difference, but I do know some people that just lump them all together.  Thats why I talked about the Tribes that fall through the cracks, and real historic Tribes in my first post.  There's even Tribes with neither Federal nor State Recognition like the Independent Seminole Indians of Florida who are cleary a Legit Tribe.   

Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Rattlebone on March 27, 2009, 02:41:30 am


  My problem is with the ones I mentioned above.  Just people that say their ancestors were Cherokee or Indian and they petition their State Legislator or Goveronor for their State Status.  I know the difference, but I do know some people that just lump them all together.  Thats why I talked about the Tribes that fall through the cracks, and real historic Tribes in my first post.  There's even Tribes with neither Federal nor State Recognition like the Independent Seminole Indians of Florida who are cleary a Legit Tribe.   




 
Quote
My problem is with the ones I mentioned above.  Just people that say their ancestors were Cherokee or Indian and they petition their State Legislator or Goveronor for their State Status.

 Yea and I think they actually hurt the chances of legitimate tribes getting recognition. Non Indians are going to see these fake tribes popping up all over the place, and assume all those fighting for recognition are fake. They already have a lot of NDN people thinking that already.

 
 
Quote
There's even Tribes with neither Federal nor State Recognition like the Independent Seminole Indians of Florida who are clearly a Legit Tribe.   


 I am not aware of those people, but im sure they are much like the numerous ones here in California that have neither state of federal recognition either, but are clearly real tribes. Same sort of case as  the Lipan who recently got recognized by Texas.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: BlackWolf on March 27, 2009, 02:45:23 am
http://www.seminoletribe.com/history/council_oak.shtml (http://www.seminoletribe.com/history/council_oak.shtml)
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: koyoteh on March 27, 2009, 06:48:08 am
Hope I didn't come off wrong. I didnt mean to be a dick if thats the way it came out. Over where I'm at these terms get confusing when talking to those who also aren't sure, and to those who do use them for official and legal reasons, and then to those who live them.

I've been in forums also where these terms were explained by others as having been adopted by us, language wise, but that weren't created by us. This part at least makes sense to me cause they are english or some other european people's words. Thats just adds more confusion.

legally yeah its a serious matter. day to day wise, it has been through some debates in some forums by others who it effects.  For me, in my environment, it doesn't apply anymore. We'd like it to , but it really doesn't, at least not at the present time. So I apologize if I was a dick for saying fuck it.



so many different ways the words tribes, nations , and clans are used it makes my head spin.

now i'm just sticking to 'my people' or 'our peoples' or 'group' or 'circle'.
over here in L.A. we use the term 'circle' a lot. Its very specific though. No details. but I like that one.

A lot of those words like tribes an clans and others came from europe and our european language words specific to their way of life. From what I hear, not that i undestand anymore, the defs are real different.

but stil , useful words to generalize as a point of reference when we speak. We pretty much know what we mean when we use these words.

I wanna say fuck it, but maybe its something important to figure out.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: koyoteh on March 27, 2009, 07:05:53 am
Quote
When a State Recognized Tribe requires no proof of ancestry, its hard to figure out who’s claims are legitimate and whose are not.  And if their ancestors did their best to hide their heritage, then it would be hard for anyone 200 years later to prove it.
   But even if a group of people have Tribal background, that does not necessarily mean that they can just go off and form their own tribe somewhere else.  They can form a heritage group, which is basically what some of the State Recognized Cherokee Tribes are. 
This is where the debate or argument comes in. Maybe not for this thread though, you tell me and maybe it can go to another thread what I'm about to say. ....Why can't they just form their own tribe? IF we are supposed to be sovereign in the first place, then why should a foreign govt be able to tell us we CAN"T form our own tribe? What business is it of theirs? "Heritage Group"? Now I really do understand what you mean, but I also understand that this is a perspective that is not a native one. Yes a native may now have adopted this perspective but this perspective is clearly instilled from the legal system of the imposed european govt under which natives have been living in. This is not a matter of hate or anger, its just the truth.
The argument part is where some say " why can't we form our own tribes? " "thats the way we have always done it." we didn't have words like "heritage group". 



Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: koyoteh on March 27, 2009, 07:14:56 am
Quote
It would be like a group of 200 Lakotas moving on their own to New York and their decendents started their own tribe 50 years later.  ( In the case of Oklahoma, whole nations were displaced, and it was a different story.)  In that case the whole Nation and its government were displaced.  In the case of the Cherokee descendants in Alabama.  Their ancestors chose to stay, while the ones that went to Oklahoma chose to stay with their Nation.  Like Koyoteh mentioned before, no one knows the reasons why people do or did what they did.  They were rough times back then.  But sometimes we are held accountable  for our ancestors decisions. 
  I see no problem with 200 migrating lakota started off new in another place. They may be lucky that they didn't have to fight anyone for a spot, but if they are so lucky, then more power to them. Unless we have 500 eden stories , and each one says we can't move from our original spot by some god law, then there's nothing else that says that natives can't migrate.
   As far as being accountable, yeah i have to kinda agree somewhat there, but only somewhat. Shit we do it all the time. Try to get european descendants to make good on contracts that their ancestors made.
But there's a difference , those were CONTRACTS made by NOT INDIVIDUAL people but LEGAL ENTITIES. Under which is their govt and the govt that we and they live. Not all of us made those contracts either, either as nations or individuals or entitities.
   IF we hold everyone accountable then we also have to hold accountable the ancestors that made bad deals with untrustworthy people.

but i do recognize reality. And I live in it. and so I live by their rules as well. They aren't so bad for the most part.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: earthw7 on March 27, 2009, 01:37:39 pm
Quote
It would be like a group of 200 Lakotas moving on their own to New York and their decendents started their own tribe 50 years later.  ( In the case of Oklahoma, whole nations were displaced, and it was a different story.)  In that case the whole Nation and its government were displaced.  In the case of the Cherokee descendants in Alabama.  Their ancestors chose to stay, while the ones that went to Oklahoma chose to stay with their Nation.  Like Koyoteh mentioned before, no one knows the reasons why people do or did what they did.  They were rough times back then.  But sometimes we are held accountable  for our ancestors decisions. 
  I see no problem with 200 migrating lakota started off new in another place. They may be lucky that they didn't have to fight anyone for a spot, but if they are so lucky, then more power to them. Unless we have 500 eden stories , and each one says we can't move from our original spot by some god law, then there's nothing else that says that natives can't migrate.
   As far as being accountable, yeah i have to kinda agree somewhat there, but only somewhat. Shit we do it all the time. Try to get european descendants to make good on contracts that their ancestors made.
But there's a difference , those were CONTRACTS made by NOT INDIVIDUAL people but LEGAL ENTITIES. Under which is their govt and the govt that we and they live. Not all of us made those contracts either, either as nations or individuals or entitities.
   IF we hold everyone accountable then we also have to hold accountable the ancestors that made bad deals with untrustworthy people.

but i do recognize reality. And I live in it. and so I live by their rules as well. They aren't so bad for the most part.

I see no problem with 200 migrating lakota started off new in another place. They may be lucky that they didn't have to fight anyone for a spot, but if they are so lucky, then more power to them. Unless we have 500 eden stories , and each one says we can't move from our original spot by some god law, then there's nothing else that says that natives can't migrate.

I will try an explain this the best i can as Lakota we can go and take over any people territory because that is what we did in the past. We claim territory so now we claim North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Missesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and three canadan provence.
The difference is "We have to answer to our Lakota-Dakota-Nakota government system". We have had a Tribal government system in place for at least a thousand years now. It must be a census based decision of Itancans and we have always kept in contact with each other with yearly meetings. I guess is something the outside wotrld does not know about us.  our people don't just leave and never go back that is not how our people work.  Family is the most important thing in our society no family no nation.
We have one story for all of us as to there we come from. The land is very important to us that is why we are second largest land owner tribes in the United States.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: bullhead on March 27, 2009, 02:18:26 pm
Koyoteh i find your posts #12 & #13 some what confusing to me.
in post 12 you seem to have a problem with the white man telling us that we can`t form a new tribe. but in post 13 you think the white mans rules aren`t so bad for the most part.

can you hunt ,fish ,trap with out buying a license were your from, I can`t BUT it is MY BIRTH RIGHT,they don`t give a shit about my birth right. many aboriginal people i know at times refer to the white man as DECISION MAKERS .which is a role they placed themselves in ,they decided we don`t need clean air ,they decided we don`t need clean water ,they decided we don`t need are lands,they decided we need there god, a god they DON`T even believe in. it`s all part of the genocide ,you should beable to come to the conclusion that i think they SUCK and there rules / laws SUCK.

they should not beable to tell us that we can`t form a new Tribe.But the example in the above post ,I would look at those people as a band of a tribe,since it is the lakota who migrated and there culture is pretty much intact today ,those who migrated ,i would think they would build there new community with the same traditional foundation there ancestors built on.
but i think it would be up to this new tribe / band and there relatives to determine how they are defined.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Moma_porcupine on March 27, 2009, 03:08:21 pm
Bullhead
Quote
they should not beable to tell us that we can`t form a new Tribe.But the example in the above post ,I would look at those people as a band of a tribe,since it is the lakota who migrated and there culture is pretty much intact today ,those who migrated ,i would think they would build there new community with the same traditional foundation there ancestors built on.
but i think it would be up to this new tribe / band and there relatives to determine how they are defined.

I would agree with this if you are reffering to a group of people who have a continuous unbroken relationship with a culturally strong native community wanting to divide into 2 different communites but if you are talking about groups of PODIAs getting together and trying to form a new tribe i really don't agree, and when you refer to the New York analogy it sounds like it may be PODIAs you are refering to .

That idea of 200 Lakota who moved to New York was a good analogy but I think that for most of these newly formed tribes this comparison is really generous.  In reality it's usually more like 4 families of maybe 30 people in total who lived in New York intermarrying with the general population of New York for the past 200 years and who kept their existence completely invisible . 

The reason I keep using federally recognized tribes as a reference point is because i don't believe people who descend from maybe two or three Cherokee ancestors who were born in 1810 who have intermarried with the non native population for the last 200 years and have remained "in hiding" up until recently, are likey to have retained anything resembling a native culture or community.

Sorry but i am speaking from first hand experience and close relationships with people with a lot less distant ancestry than that, who for the most part are honest enough to admit they are NOT anywhere close to being NDNs.

As recognition of a native community is commonly pointed out as being a defining characteristic when people talk about who is NDN and who isn't, I think it's important to be clear that groups of PODIAs getting together and declaring themselves a tribe is not the sort of recognition of a Native community being reffered to.

I think Black Wolf is hitting the nail on the head when they refer to tribes that have a recorded historical existence as being different than the ones that recently popped up out of seemingly nowhere.

It's possible there may be a few groups of people with a strong indigenous heritage who managed to avoid being recorded as existing , but i really doubt this has happened very often , and if they did and they can be proven to have intermarried with the general nonnative population for several generations, I think these claims are for the most part really unrealistic.

I am also under the impression that while a tribe or band might be unrecognized by the federal government , these people are almost always recognized by the closely related tribes who are federally recognized. While i totally agree that non native people have no right to decide who is a tribe, I also see this is often used by these self proclaimed new tribes to explain why no one recognizes their existence. The problem is,  when their existence is not recognized by their closest federally recognized relatives ,  in fact ,  THEY ARE WHITE PEOPLE DECIDING WHO IS NDN.

If fedederally recognized tribes feel strong enough to take these people back and reassimilate them, thats great, but I don't think these PODIAs have any right to expect anything that isn't in the best long term interest of the federally recognized tribe they claim .

While it is true that people are either NDN or not NDN , in relation to who has the right to control collective resources belonging to Native people, I don't think this is true as far as peoples individual expereince.
 
Although I don't see unenrolled PODIAs as being entitled to anything , I think there is lots of PODIAs who's lives and families have been somewhat influenced by having "a bit of Indian back there".

When people with some native descent but no ongoing family ties to a culturally strong native community get told they are entirely nonnative that runs into a lot of problems because these people may have some very real influence from a small amount of native heritage. If people try and deny that small but real influence,  and say they are entirely non native , these people rightly get offended and say thats not true.

It seems where things get unpleasant and contentious is when people who are predominately non native through blood / culture / community expect to have access to tribal resources or think they are capable of making decisions about who should be considered a tribal member , or how sensitive culture or resources should be managed or protected.

It seem obvious to me that important decisions about things like tribal membership, acknowldging related bands , cultural mantainence and protection , and  positions of leadership are best left in the hands of people who have the proper community support and the most intact cultural knowledge.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: BlackWolf on March 27, 2009, 03:33:36 pm
Quote
I see no problem with 200 migrating lakota started off new in another place. They may be lucky that they didn't have to fight anyone for a spot, but if they are so lucky, then more power to them. Unless we have 500 eden stories , and each one says we can't move from our original spot by some god law, then there's nothing else that says that natives can't migrate.


I agree Koyoteh, that there’s nothing that says natives can’t migrate.  And in the past some Indians even were absorbed into other tribes.  This came up in the conversation about what happened to the Aztec Empire after Hernán Cortes and the Conquistadors arrived in Tenochitlan ( Mexico City ).  So in certain circumstances, they may have left their tribe or migrated away from their tribe. 

With that said, there are cases where tribes are split.  So this can’t be looked at as a blanket statement either in regards to forming split off tribes or bands.  The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina stayed behind ( They didn’t Walk the Trail of Tears )  So, in that case they are also a Federally Recognized Tribe.  So I guess you have to look at the individual circumstances also.  How many members of that tribe migrated or stayed?  What is or was the consensus of the Tribal Council, Elders, or the Main Tribal Government?  Where they displaced by War or Forced Removal?, or did they just leave on their own? 


Quote
It seem obvious to me that important decisions about things like tribal membership, acknowldging related bands , cultural mantainence and protection , and positions of leadership are best left in the hands of people who have the proper community support and the most intact cultural knowledge.

Moma porcupine sums it up good here.



Quote
I will try an explain this the best I can as Lakota we can go and take over any people territory because that is what we did in the past. We claim territory so now we claim North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Missesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and three canadan provence.
The difference is "We have to answer to our Lakota-Dakota-Nakota government system". We have had a Tribal government system in place for at least a thousand years now. It must be a census based decision of Itancans and we have always kept in contact with each other with yearly meetings. I guess is something the outside wotrld does not know about us. our people don't just leave and never go back that is not how our people work. Family is the most important thing in our society no family no nation.We have one story for all of us as to there we come from. The land is very important to us that is why we are second largest land owner tribes in the United States.

I agree with pretty much all you say here earthw7.  One case I can think of pertaining to my tribe is the case of the Cherokees that migrated to the Lake Chapala/Guadalajara region of Mexico in the 1800s because they were driven out of Texas.  There were a few hundred of them that left.   (They would number in the thousands today ).  They migrated down there and stayed.  The descendants of these Cherokees are still there.  ( I don’t know how they identify today or if they still identify as Cherokees or what traditions are still upheld there ). If I met them though, I would recognize them as my fellow Cherokees by blood.  But as far as them forming their own official Tribe or Band is a different story.  There would have to be some kind of consensus from the original Tribal Governments, Councils, Elders.  Which I doubt would be the case
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Rattlebone on March 27, 2009, 05:51:50 pm


 

That idea of 200 Lakota who moved to New York was a good analogy but I think that for most of these newly formed tribes this comparison is really generous.  In reality it's usually more like 4 families of maybe 30 people in total who lived in New York intermarrying with the general population of New York for the past 200 years and who kept their existence completely invisible . 

The reason I keep using federally recognized tribes as a reference point is because i don't believe people who descend from maybe two or three Cherokee ancestors who were born in 1810 who have intermarried with the non native population for the last 200 years and have remained "in hiding" up until recently, are likey to have retained anything resembling a native culture or community.



 Though I don't really disagree with you on this point, there is something to be thought about when you tie this argument of recognition, the passage of time, and culture into one such as I see you do often.

 I am curious as to your opinion in regards to a tribe such as the Mashantucket Peqout whom both Native and non Native critics say are not really Indian and are just black people for the most part because they have nothing left of their Pequot language or culture.

  For the most part it is said that the last person whom was really Peqout in any true manner was grandmother of Skip Hayward, who was dead before he got the tribe recognized. I think her BQ was something like 1/4 to 1/8 at the highest. A great deal of the members are said to be descendants of related families that were ran off their land by the grandmother because they had married blacks, or looked black themselves. I do believe there is "race problems" existing there to this day over those mixed with black versus those mixed with white.

 So do you think they should not have been granted recognition if the conditions expressed by their critics are true?

Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: koyoteh on March 27, 2009, 09:36:52 pm
Koyoteh i find your posts #12 & #13 some what confusing to me.
in post 12 you seem to have a problem with the white man telling us that we can`t form a new tribe. but in post 13 you think the white mans rules aren`t so bad for the most part.

yeah I have a problem with my own words here two. But my own words I do not believe I said "white man" even though it is their form of govt that started it all . As I get older I have to make some reality checks, some acknowleding.  When it comes to native issues , I do philosophically, have a problem when govt tells natives what to do. Especially when it goes against what we believe in or feel is right.

but the reality is this, IF I or ANY of us really thought it that that that bad, then we would give up the things we have and the things we do everyday to change things 100%. But we don't. SOME things we like. This laptop. My xbox. My food not spoiling in my refrigerator. My water in my house I bought because I worked at My job. My car that gets me around. etc. Yeah these are the realities of our world now as well. Theres' a lot that happpens to go along with having these things. The people that were hurt along the way for these things to get to us. The nations that were hurt along the way for us to be using these things .
Wheres the accountability when it comes to judging 'the white man' ? we aren't innocent either.
   In addition, not that bad  cause with these laws we may hate, comes a law that says we change the laws. Yes laws can be changed. We just have to do the work. WORK is something other parts of the world consider a privilege. Not that it is . ITs just not that bad.

See I listen to people talk about how bad life is for us all the time, yet it must not be or else they'd do something about it.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: koyoteh on March 27, 2009, 09:50:17 pm
i will not quote anyone as it really isn't about any one quote.

when a person or people split off for good or bad reasons they are still native. their descendants are still native, unless they stop mixing with natives completely. but as far as natives not being able to start their own tribe cause people don't like them or agree with them or kicked them out justifiably, of course no would look kindly on their new tribe. This doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it.

Our people's did it. Its how some of our  tribes came to be. The new tribe may not be liked, but as they are no longer part of the old tribe, for whatever reasons, the old tribe no longer has a say in the new tribes affairs. Basically the old tribe can't justifiably say any new tribe is not valid, they gave that right up when they let their members go.

Talking about legally federal recognition and who retains a right to benefits from a treaty is something else. If members leave a tribe of their own free will, then they are also giving up the benefits of the treaty their old tribe had. Because the treaty was with the old tribe not the new one.
This would also mean any new tribe would be completely on their own and take the responsibility for their own new life.

But what about when someone is kicked out in a messed up way? Then really they are being DENIED their rights to the benefits of the treaty. They didn't leave or give up the rights to the benefits of the treaty of their own free will. What then? I say its messed up. Do tribes have the right? maybe, but is it irght?
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: earthw7 on March 28, 2009, 03:02:18 am
Like i said before if a part of people leave their nation, they do not start a new tribe.
They start maybe a new clan or band of that tribe. They must always have contact and family with the old tribe.

If a person is kick out of a tribe one would have to look at
1. what degree of indian blood they have to the tribe
2. did they marry outsiders
3. did they break a tribal law

Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Moma_porcupine on March 28, 2009, 03:12:47 am
Rattlebone

Quote
For the most part it is said that the last person whom was really Peqout in any true manner was grandmother of Skip Hayward, who was dead before he got the tribe recognized. I think her BQ was something like 1/4 to 1/8 at the highest. A great deal of the members are said to be descendants of related families that were ran off their land by the grandmother because they had married blacks, or looked black themselves. I do believe there is "race problems" existing there to this day over those mixed with black versus those mixed with white.

 So do you think they should not have been granted recognition if the conditions expressed by their critics are true?

Well first off i'm not sure what the other recognized tribes in the area have to say about the Pequots and I don't mean to diminish the importance of this by pointing out the continuous existence of this tribe is well recorded. The main thing that I notice,  is that even briefly researching the Mashantucket Pequot turns up multiple sources of records that easily prove beyond reasonable doubt they were a continually existing Native community . 


http://www.pequotmuseum.org/TribalHistory/TribalHistoryOverview/TribalHistoryOverview.htm
Quote
By the early 17th century, just prior to European contact, the Pequots had approximately 8,000 members and inhabited 250 square miles. However, the Pequot War (1636-1638) -- the first major conflict between colonists and an indigenous New England people -- had a devastating impact on the Tribe.

When the Pequot War formally ended, many tribal members had been killed and others placed in slavery or under the control of other tribes. Those placed under the rule of the Mohegans eventually became known as the Mashantucket (Western) Pequots and were given land at Noank in 1651. In 1666, the land at Noank was taken from the Tribe, and it was given back property at Mashantucket.

In the ensuing decades, the Pequots battled to keep their land, while at the same time losing reservation members to outside forces. By 1774, a Colonial census indicated that there were 151 tribal members in residence at Mashantucket. By the early 1800s, there were between 30 and 40 as members moved away from the reservation seeking work. [/b]Others joined the Brotherton Movement, a Christian-Indian movement that attracted Natives from New England to a settlement in upstate New York and later, Wisconsin. As for the remaining land in Connecticut, by 1856 illegal land sales had reduced the 989-acre reservation to 213 acre


http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/algonquian/moheganhist.htm

Quote
In 1705 they numbered 750, and in 1774 were reported at 206. Soon after they lost a considerable number by removal to New York, and in 1804 only 84 were left, who were reduced to 69 five years later. They were reported to number 300 in 1825, and about 350 in 1832, but the increased numbers are probably due to the enumeration of Negroes and mixed bloods living with them, together with recruits from the Narraganset and others in the vicinity.

http://homepage.ct.metrocast.net/~kamaba/NewLondonCo/Mohegan.htm.
Quote
1861 Census of Persons on Mohegan Reservation
he following named persons reside on the Mohegan Reservation, and belong to, or are connected with the Tribe, June 1861. Some of the data on my copy of this census is unreadable, most of the birth, death & marriage records can be found at the Montville Town Hall, Route 32, Montville, Ct. Montville was once part of New London, called the North Parish, and early records


Doing a search on some of the surnames on the online 1880 census records on the LDS website turns up a community of 11 families living right next door to each other,  with 42 members , 38 who were recorded as Native American . 


http://www.dickshovel.com/peq.html
Quote
Many of the Pequot gradually drifted away from the confines of their small reservations, and their numbers in Connecticut continued to decline until there were only 66 by the time of the 1910 census.

Below is a rather biased article which mentions the people who try to discredit the Pequots continuous survival as a people

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/05/23/60II/main198627.shtml
Quote
In the early '70s, the Pequots didn't exist, at least as far as the federal government was concerned. There was just a small reservation given to the remnants of the tribe by the state of Connecticut. And for a time in the 1970s, only one person lived on it, a 78-year-old woman, Elizabeth George, who was blessed with a very ambitious grandson: Skip Hayward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashantucket_Pequot_Tribe_of_Connecticut

Quote
They base tribal membership on individuals proving descent from people included on the 1900 census.[17] This is similar to the Cherokee Nation's reliance on individuals listed in the Dawes Rolls.

But what I see here is clearly a group of people who continuously hung onto their tribal identity , and at least up until recently continued to intermarry to a large degree with other Native people. The Pequots are a continuously existing native community and as such , even if there was several decades where most of the population was forced to move elsewhere to survive, when they came back together in the 1970's , they would have still had Elders who had been born and raised in a Native community.

So no matter what the critics say, and no matter how low peoples BQ has become after 400 years of colonization , the well recorded facts speak for themselves, and I don't see any legitimate reason to dispute their identity as a tribe.  There is a lot more going on here than a group of distant descendants who have lived as non native for several generations trying to recreate a tribe.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: bullhead on March 28, 2009, 02:44:53 pm
Koyoteh
in your #20 post{talking about legally federal recognition and who retains a right to benefits from a treaty is something else. if members leave a tribe of there own free will,then they are also giving up the benefits of the treaty there old tribe had .}

here is what I know ,in michigan you will find GTB {Grand Traverse Band } they have had there fed status a little less then 30 years,one of the other bands wanted there own fed status and they eventualy got it,as far as i know they lost nothing by forming there own band and forming there own goverment.
you are right about this new band being responsible for there own new lives and they have had a bumpy start to say the least,but it takes time to work the bugs out,i can`t even imagine how large a task this would be.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: BlackWolf on March 29, 2009, 01:52:40 am
Quote
Why can't they just form their own tribe? IF we are supposed to be sovereign in the first place, then why should a foreign govt be able to tell us we CAN"T form our own tribe? What business is it of theirs? "Heritage Group"? Now I really do understand what you mean, but I also understand that this is a perspective that is not a native one. Yes a native may now have adopted this perspective but this perspective is clearly instilled from the legal system of the imposed european govt under which natives have been living in. This is not a matter of hate or anger, its just the truth.
The argument part is where some say " why can't we form our own tribes? " "thats the way we have always done it." we didn't have words like "heritage group".



I guess it comes down to what "Tribe" and "Heritage Group" means and how it is defined. 

What I would ask Koyoteh pertaining to his people is.  Are you and your Mexica people a close knit community in LA? 

If I meet fellow members from my Tribe that I don’t know.  I might ask them something like “Who their family is? or what part of Oklahoma do they or their family come from or came from.  Even the low BQ members of my tribe can at least tell me the name of their blood ancestor on the Rolls.  I myself have literally thousands of commen descendants form the same ancestors on our Tribal Rolls that today live in Oklahoma and around the country.   

A lot of times, surnames people tell me are familiar to me.  The part of Oklahoma they come from also comes up in conversation.

Also a lot of times when you meet fellow Tribal Members from your tribe,  you sometimes have common acquittances in common.  So I could imagine with the smaller tribes, everyone knows different families and names and locations and things like that. This is part of what makes a Tribe a Tribe.  People know who their fellow Tribal Members are and arent'.  ( Not everyone of course ).  But meaning wheree ver the Tribe is based, it is commen to know who your people are. 

Koyoteh when you travel around away from your people.  How do you describe yourself to others?  Do you for example,  when you meet new people, identity as “Mexica”. 

I guess my point in all this, is to ask Koyoteh if” his Mexica people in LA are a tight knit community? 

Do they have cultural events on a regular basis?  He says he is an Aztec/Mexica dancer, so that’s part of a cultural event of his people. So culture is part of what they do.   

Koyoteh, do your people have a council or do your Elders meet on certain issues.  I don’t mean an official council, I mean like "do your people meet on a regular basis."  Do you and your people maintain any of the old ceremonies of your people/Tribe.  Do you all have “Oral Traditions” passed down? Did your mother or father or grandparents pass down any Tribal Knowledge to you?

Do you and your people work with other Indian Communities in California or LA?

A Tribe means to me a people “distinct from others” A lot of your people’s ways have been lost to your generation ( You mentioned that before), but I think you said your grandma was a fluent speaker of Nauatl.  So I’m not saying you have to be full blood or be a fluent speaker of your language to know your Tribes ways.  And I'm not saying your people have to adhere to every single thing I mentioed above to be considred a Tribe.  I just want to know “how do you and your "Mexica people" in LA come together in a community or cultural way that is distinct from others?  ( And I don't mean as Mexican Americans  because that is a seperate issue).  I mean coming together as a "Mexica People"?
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: koyoteh on March 30, 2009, 07:05:44 pm
Like i said before if a part of people leave their nation, they do not start a new tribe.
They start maybe a new clan or band of that tribe. They must always have contact and family with the old tribe.

If a person is kick out of a tribe one would have to look at
1. what degree of indian blood they have to the tribe
2. did they marry outsiders
3. did they break a tribal law



like i said before, once a person leaves a tribe, the btribe they left or were made to leave no longer has any say in the matter. How could they? do lakotas speak for the chumash? do shoshone speak for apache? does any nation speak for the disconnected, the disenrolled, the nonfederally recognized, or for anyone else  in the world?  should they?  if you mean legally, within the united states, and only with those who hold legal treaty/contracts then maybe u have a point., but that would also be giving up some of your own sovereignty, which is entirely up to you, but u cant decide that for others.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: koyoteh on March 30, 2009, 07:10:34 pm
Koyoteh
in your #20 post{talking about legally federal recognition and who retains a right to benefits from a treaty is something else. if members leave a tribe of there own free will,then they are also giving up the benefits of the treaty there old tribe had .}

here is what I know ,in michigan you will find GTB {Grand Traverse Band } they have had there fed status a little less then 30 years,one of the other bands wanted there own fed status and they eventualy got it,as far as i know they lost nothing by forming there own band and forming there own goverment.
you are right about this new band being responsible for there own new lives and they have had a bumpy start to say the least,but it takes time to work the bugs out,i can`t even imagine how large a task this would be.

and i really think this is a task that the country and nations will be facing very soon . I actually think they are facing this already, its just now a matter of recognizing it, and dealing with the emotions that go along with it. After all the emotional stages go away, I think all our nations, recgonized or not, will actually start to look into. It will be interesting to see how the govt will respond when we start to deal with it.

Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: koyoteh on March 30, 2009, 07:25:14 pm
yes to just about all of these things you just said. Makes me excited to know how far my community and people have come in 500 years after contact.  Yep, here in L.A. we are pretty tight knit. We don't all agree with each other , but i am proud now to say that , after a lot of hard work and the work still continues, we are pretty tight knit. We also go beyond L.A. A lot of it is also due to the help of other nations, other tribes, clans, even across borders.  Exciting time period really.
After 1492, depending on where your nation was at at the time started a new cycle- time period, every time period and human being and society, goes through stages. Somtiemes called life stages. 1492 was first contact for some, and its been over 500 years. My people made contact before 1521, my wifes people way before that. So we've gone through some life stages that others have not , but now are going through ,and may or may not go through in the future if things go well or not. Say like a nation who just made contact 200 years ago, or 100 years ago , or 10 years ago. This makes for a lot of problems in intertribal communications, cause of the dfferences of our realities of the experiences we have gone through or haven't gone through yet.
 We are at a stage where we are now developing our own economy, our own schools. we started off with dancing. we have events and ceremonies on a consistent basis, and yes we even had our stage of annoying "SUPER" indians, or as we say "super-xicanos". I hope we passed that stage though. Thats only a stage for the disconnected and for those connected who get glorified by the disconnected, which we have also seen . LOL funny when you look back at it.
Yes I say MEXICA. Now from time to time depending on who I am talking to I may say native, or even rarely , mexican , or even more rarely hispanic which is wrong but understood. I really don't want to get into a deep converstation at the doctors secretary's window.

I guess it comes down to what "Tribe" and "Heritage Group" means and how it is defined. 

What I would ask Koyoteh pertaining to his people is.  Are you and your Mexica people a close knit community in LA? 

If I meet fellow members from my Tribe that I don’t know.  I might ask them something like “Who their family is? or what part of Oklahoma do they or their family come from or came from.  Even the low BQ members of my tribe can at least tell me the name of their blood ancestor on the Rolls.  I myself have literally thousands of commen descendants form the same ancestors on our Tribal Rolls that today live in Oklahoma and around the country.   

A lot of times, surnames people tell me are familiar to me.  The part of Oklahoma they come from also comes up in conversation.

Also a lot of times when you meet fellow Tribal Members from your tribe,  you sometimes have common acquittances in common.  So I could imagine with the smaller tribes, everyone knows different families and names and locations and things like that. This is part of what makes a Tribe a Tribe.  People know who their fellow Tribal Members are and arent'.  ( Not everyone of course ).  But meaning wheree ver the Tribe is based, it is commen to know who your people are. 

Koyoteh when you travel around away from your people.  How do you describe yourself to others?  Do you for example,  when you meet new people, identity as “Mexica”. 

I guess my point in all this, is to ask Koyoteh if” his Mexica people in LA are a tight knit community? 

Do they have cultural events on a regular basis?  He says he is an Aztec/Mexica dancer, so that’s part of a cultural event of his people. So culture is part of what they do.   

Koyoteh, do your people have a council or do your Elders meet on certain issues.  I don’t mean an official council, I mean like "do your people meet on a regular basis."  Do you and your people maintain any of the old ceremonies of your people/Tribe.  Do you all have “Oral Traditions” passed down? Did your mother or father or grandparents pass down any Tribal Knowledge to you?

Do you and your people work with other Indian Communities in California or LA?

A Tribe means to me a people “distinct from others” A lot of your people’s ways have been lost to your generation ( You mentioned that before), but I think you said your grandma was a fluent speaker of Nauatl.  So I’m not saying you have to be full blood or be a fluent speaker of your language to know your Tribes ways.  And I'm not saying your people have to adhere to every single thing I mentioed above to be considred a Tribe.  I just want to know “how do you and your "Mexica people" in LA come together in a community or cultural way that is distinct from others?  ( And I don't mean as Mexican Americans  because that is a seperate issue).  I mean coming together as a "Mexica People"
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Rattlebone on April 01, 2009, 10:30:06 pm
Rattlebone

Quote
For the most part it is said that the last person whom was really Peqout in any true manner was grandmother of Skip Hayward, who was dead before he got the tribe recognized. I think her BQ was something like 1/4 to 1/8 at the highest. A great deal of the members are said to be descendants of related families that were ran off their land by the grandmother because they had married blacks, or looked black themselves. I do believe there is "race problems" existing there to this day over those mixed with black versus those mixed with white.

 So do you think they should not have been granted recognition if the conditions expressed by their critics are true?

Well first off i'm not sure what the other recognized tribes in the area have to say about the Pequots and I don't mean to diminish the importance of this by pointing out the continuous existence of this tribe is well recorded. The main thing that I notice,  is that even briefly researching the Mashantucket Pequot turns up multiple sources of records that easily prove beyond reasonable doubt they were a continually existing Native community . 


http://www.pequotmuseum.org/TribalHistory/TribalHistoryOverview/TribalHistoryOverview.htm
Quote
By the early 17th century, just prior to European contact, the Pequots had approximately 8,000 members and inhabited 250 square miles. However, the Pequot War (1636-1638) -- the first major conflict between colonists and an indigenous New England people -- had a devastating impact on the Tribe.

When the Pequot War formally ended, many tribal members had been killed and others placed in slavery or under the control of other tribes. Those placed under the rule of the Mohegans eventually became known as the Mashantucket (Western) Pequots and were given land at Noank in 1651. In 1666, the land at Noank was taken from the Tribe, and it was given back property at Mashantucket.

In the ensuing decades, the Pequots battled to keep their land, while at the same time losing reservation members to outside forces. By 1774, a Colonial census indicated that there were 151 tribal members in residence at Mashantucket. By the early 1800s, there were between 30 and 40 as members moved away from the reservation seeking work. [/b]Others joined the Brotherton Movement, a Christian-Indian movement that attracted Natives from New England to a settlement in upstate New York and later, Wisconsin. As for the remaining land in Connecticut, by 1856 illegal land sales had reduced the 989-acre reservation to 213 acre


http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/algonquian/moheganhist.htm

Quote
In 1705 they numbered 750, and in 1774 were reported at 206. Soon after they lost a considerable number by removal to New York, and in 1804 only 84 were left, who were reduced to 69 five years later. They were reported to number 300 in 1825, and about 350 in 1832, but the increased numbers are probably due to the enumeration of Negroes and mixed bloods living with them, together with recruits from the Narraganset and others in the vicinity.

http://homepage.ct.metrocast.net/~kamaba/NewLondonCo/Mohegan.htm.
Quote
1861 Census of Persons on Mohegan Reservation
he following named persons reside on the Mohegan Reservation, and belong to, or are connected with the Tribe, June 1861. Some of the data on my copy of this census is unreadable, most of the birth, death & marriage records can be found at the Montville Town Hall, Route 32, Montville, Ct. Montville was once part of New London, called the North Parish, and early records


Doing a search on some of the surnames on the online 1880 census records on the LDS website turns up a community of 11 families living right next door to each other,  with 42 members , 38 who were recorded as Native American . 


http://www.dickshovel.com/peq.html
Quote
Many of the Pequot gradually drifted away from the confines of their small reservations, and their numbers in Connecticut continued to decline until there were only 66 by the time of the 1910 census.

Below is a rather biased article which mentions the people who try to discredit the Pequots continuous survival as a people

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/05/23/60II/main198627.shtml
Quote
In the early '70s, the Pequots didn't exist, at least as far as the federal government was concerned. There was just a small reservation given to the remnants of the tribe by the state of Connecticut. And for a time in the 1970s, only one person lived on it, a 78-year-old woman, Elizabeth George, who was blessed with a very ambitious grandson: Skip Hayward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashantucket_Pequot_Tribe_of_Connecticut

Quote
They base tribal membership on individuals proving descent from people included on the 1900 census.[17] This is similar to the Cherokee Nation's reliance on individuals listed in the Dawes Rolls.

But what I see here is clearly a group of people who continuously hung onto their tribal identity , and at least up until recently continued to intermarry to a large degree with other Native people. The Pequots are a continuously existing native community and as such , even if there was several decades where most of the population was forced to move elsewhere to survive, when they came back together in the 1970's , they would have still had Elders who had been born and raised in a Native community.

So no matter what the critics say, and no matter how low peoples BQ has become after 400 years of colonization , the well recorded facts speak for themselves, and I don't see any legitimate reason to dispute their identity as a tribe.  There is a lot more going on here than a group of distant descendants who have lived as non native for several generations trying to recreate a tribe.


 Though I do support their sovereignty, I do disagree with your sources. I notice a lot of them come from the Peqouts themselves.

 The simple fact is that there was a single woman living on their land in the 1970's and she was the only person that was trying to cling on to what they had. Her nephew Skip Hayward got the tribe recognized after she died. This recognition was done by a hasty act, that probably would not meet the requirements of the BIA today. Some say she was not even Peqout, but from some other tribe.

 There have been a number or interviews in which people enrolled in that tribe said they were mostly black or Puerto Rican, and only got enrolled for the money.

  I have looked at your sources, but have also read the book "hitting the Jackpot," by Fromson. Though I sorta view him quite possibly against them having their sovereignty or casino since his book did contain a lot of criticism of them it seems; much of what he wrote has not be contested by them, and was based on research that is a matter of public record anyone can obtain as well as actual interviews with the persons involved.

 So in my mind the vast majority of these people might fall under your PODIA category, and in any other circumstances such as them not being recognized I kinda doubt that you would support them.
 
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Moma_porcupine on April 01, 2009, 11:49:38 pm
Rattlebone...  Some of the sources i refer to are on the Pequot website and I agree it's good to be careful of information coming from people with a vested interest.

However the census records for 1860 are almost certainly from the census taken in 1860 and the 1880 census on the LDS website showing a surviving Pequot Native community could not possibly have been falsified by the Pequots. That you would even suggest the records i pointed out might be irrelevent and tampered with by the Pequots seems dishonest.

As there is proof this tribe existed in 1880, I see no reason to doubt it also existed in 1910 as is stated in various sources- even if I haven't found an online version of the 1910 census that proves this.

Your agruement that this tribe didn't exist by 1970 because they couldn't all survive on the small land base remaining to them is unrealistic. Even if they weren't all managing to live on the small reservation land left to them , presumably many of the people living in the community in 1910 were still alive in 1970, and there would have been quite a few people who maintained close ties to this community they grew up in, who were living and working elsewhere .   

If there was no tribe which can be proven to have maintained it's existence , as the Pequots can be proven to have done , after a couple generations of no tribe, generally speaking people would not be culturally Native and would be PODIAs.

Seems simple to me.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Rattlebone on April 02, 2009, 12:23:20 am
Rattlebone...  Some of the sources i refer to are on the Pequot website and I agree it's good to be careful of information coming from people with a vested interest.

However the census records for 1860 are almost certainly from the census taken in 1860 and the 1880 census on the LDS website showing a surviving Pequot Native community could not possibly have been falsified by the Pequots. That you would even suggest the records i pointed out might be irrelevent and tampered with by the Pequots seems dishonest.

As there is proof this tribe existed in 1880, I see no reason to doubt it also existed in 1910 as is stated in various sources- even if I haven't found an online version of the 1910 census that proves this.

Your agruement that this tribe didn't exist by 1970 because they couldn't all survive on the small land base remaining to them is unrealistic. Even if they weren't all managing to live on the small reservation land left to them , presumably many of the people living in the community in 1910 were still alive in 1970, and there would have been quite a few people who maintained close ties to this community they grew up in, who were living and working elsewhere .   

If there was no tribe which can be proven to have maintained it's existence , as the Pequots can be proven to have done , after a couple generations of no tribe, generally speaking people would not be culturally Native and would be PODIAs.

Seems simple to me.

Quote
However the census records for 1860 are almost certainly from the census taken in 1860 and the 1880 census on the LDS website showing a surviving Pequot Native community could not possibly have been falsified by the Pequots

 I am talking about the Mashanatucket Pequot of Conn.  Though your mention of this 1860 census might be a valid one, what happened after that goes against everything you have stated in this group yourself.

  Most of the 20th Century there land was occupied primarily by one person by the name of Eliza George Plouffe, and she was the only person that really acknowledged being from those people or knew much about them. Sure she had pushed off some of the "black looking" relatives, or her mother had, but bottom line she was the last one to know anything cultural about that tribe.

 She died in 1973, and later on one of her daughters moved on the rez. Later on Skip Hayward who was Eliza's nephew would start up the process of getting them recognized, but prior to that he had never cared and really never knew a thing about his people. All of this is known as well. Skip Hayward himself is probably like 1/8 if even that. His BQ does not matter other then to show he was not only distant in relations but not really knowledgeable of his "culture" and had most likely never cared before.

 As for the 1860's census....the descendants of those people did not live in any sort of community, and were spread out. Them being enrolled in that tribe is not unlike some PODIA as you call them finding a relative on the Dawes roll and becoming Cherokee.


Quote
That you would even suggest the records i pointed out might be irrelevent and tampered with by the Pequots seems dishonest.

 I never said anything about them being tampered with. I did say they seemed to come from the Peqouts themselves, and of course they are not going to put things down in such a way as to make themselves look bad in any way now are they? Especially when in 2000 the BIA was questioning if they were even really who they claim to be.

 One of the links you posted up was to the Mohegans, and im not even sure if that is the Mashanatucket people, but rather a different group.


Quote
As there is proof this tribe existed in 1880, I see no reason to doubt it also existed in 1910 as is stated in various sources- even if I haven't found an online version of the 1910 census that proves this.

 If you are using 1880 as a reference then wouldn't that justify some PODIA with proof finding some other relatives and getting a tribe that had not functioned as one since the 1880's recognized. If you do some research on the Plouffe family you will see that is what happened.


Quote
  Your agruement that this tribe didn't exist by 1970 because they couldn't all survive on the small land base remaining to them is unrealistic.

I said no such thing, and don't even believe that to be true myself. I said that Eliza was the sole person living on that land, and that nobody cared about any of it until after her death. I think those who did were motivated by money if you ask me. I have talked to a few younger ones a few years ago who were young adults, and they had pride in being Peqout; however I think that is something starting to grow now possibly and was not the case when the tribe was seeking recognition.


Quote
Even if they weren't all managing to live on the small reservation land left to them , presumably many of the people living in the community in 1910 were still alive in 1970, and there would have been quite a few people who maintained close ties to this community they grew up in, who were living and working elsewhere .   

 As I already pointed out I was not making any case based on land or it's size..ever. I was pointing out that this community did not exist in the 20th century, and that those people did not have any close ties with each other as you think they did. This was due to hatred of each other based on the fact that some had married into black families and there was racial hatred because of it. It exists to this very day.


Quote
  If there was no tribe which can be proven to have maintained it's existence , as the Pequots can be proven to have done , after a couple generations of no tribe, generally speaking people would not be culturally Native and would be PODIAs.

  This is and was my point in my original question to you.

 The tribe had ceased to exist since the late 1800's and nothing culturally about it had been maintained. One of the things they did in the 1970's and early 80's was to have "council meetings" to make it seem as if they had a tribal government. Maybe they had at that time, but it was not in continual exist that most tribes need to prove for recognition, and was only being done to make it look as if they did.

 So as you say they would have been PODIA's, because that is exactly what they are in cultural terms. Sure they had enough genealogy information to prove they are related to the Peqouts, but they got recognized by political wrangling that got them recognized as a tribe. Most people on the East coast trying to jump through the hurdles needed to gain recognition would never gain it had they been in these exact same circumstances because BIA rules in regards to recognition could have never been met. They gained theirs through Congress and not through the recognition process.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Rattlebone on April 02, 2009, 12:52:30 am
 Here is some more on the Peqouts.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/books/the-richest-indians.html

 The article is written by somebody whom I feel is anti Indian, but some of the historical info about the Peqouts seems accurate as is his saying Skip Hayward's biggest dream was just to open a Pizza Parlor.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Moma_porcupine on April 02, 2009, 02:31:08 am
Rattlebone
Quote
The tribe had ceased to exist since the late 1800's and nothing culturally about it had been maintained.

Rattlebone, it's hard to say how much culture survived, but thats probably true for many Native communities on the East Coast.  What i'm trying to show you, is the Pequots did manage to hang onto their Indian identity enough to be repeatedly recorded as existing as a a tribe, from the time of first colonization until they were federally recognized.  There was no break in maintaining this tribal identity of a couple generations. In other words  people who were recorded as part of this tribe would have been the parents and grandparents of the people who later became officially recognized as members of this tribe.

     http://homepage.ct.metrocast.net/~kamaba/NewLondonCo/pequot.htm
Quote
Report of the Pequot Indian Tribes 1931
as made by overseer, Gilbert S. Raymond,
as filed in Court and approved

"The members of the Ledyard Tribe of Pequot Indians (Mushantuxet, Mashantucket), as near as can be ascertained, follows --
of these, only 4 reside on the reservation."

"The members of the Ledyard Tribe of Pequot Indians (Mushantuxet, Mashantucket), as near as can be ascertained, follows --
of these, only 4 reside on the reservation."


NAME   RESIDENCE
Lemuel Baker   Stonington, CT
Joseph Williams   Mystic, CT
Mrs John (Sarah J) Perry   Westerly, RI
Bertha Brown   Newport, RI
John George   Stonington, CT
Mrs Mabel George Studd   Groton, CT
Flora Stenhouse   Westerly, RI
Elizabeth George Plouffe   Mystic, CT
Donald Cady   Mystic, CT
Eva Cady   Mystic, CT
Mrs Martha Smith   Mystic, CT
Amos N George   Simsbury, CT
Alice Gouvernment   Mystic, CT
Regina Gouvernment, age 7   Mystic, CT
Joseph Gouvernment, age 3   Mystic, CT
Mrs Jane Wheeler Durfee   North Stonington, CT
George H Remington   address unknown
William L Remington   address unknown
Isabella Remington   address unknown
Henry George, son of Amos N George   Simsbury, CT
Amos George, Jr, son of Amos N George   Simsbury, CT
Frank Locke, son of Eunice George Locke, deceased   Groton, CT
Harold Locke, son of Eunice George Locke, deceased   Groton, CT
Thurza(Theoxa) Locke, dau of Eunice George Locke, deceased   Groton, CT
Earle Roy Colebutt   Groton, CT
Mrs Ephraim Williams   Mystic, CT
The ten children of Clarence Sebastian and Henrietta Williams Sebastian, grandchildren of Ephraim Williams deceased are members of this tribe
This unbroken ( but not always undisrupted ) continuity of existence is what makes legitimate tribes different than a bunch of PODIAs who wannabe a sovereign Nation.

I agree this group came very close to having lost it's identity as a tribe , but it didn't. By 1930 these people were dispersed , but not so much they did not maintain their identity as members of their tribe.

I don't feel like continuing this discussion as we seem to be going in circles and getting nowhere.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Moma_porcupine on April 02, 2009, 03:22:37 am
And Rattlebone is right that I somehow got off on the Mohegan people who lived in the same area but were not the Pequots ...I have no idea how i did that . I think my brain must be turning to mush ...

All of the information below from Reply #22 including the information I found in the 1880 census is for a different nearby tribe.   

Quote
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/algonquian/moheganhist.htm

Quote
In 1705 they numbered 750, and in 1774 were reported at 206. Soon after they lost a considerable number by removal to New York, and in 1804 only 84 were left, who were reduced to 69 five years later. They were reported to number 300 in 1825, and about 350 in 1832, but the increased numbers are probably due to the enumeration of Negroes and mixed bloods living with them, together with recruits from the Narraganset and others in the vicinity.

http://homepage.ct.metrocast.net/~kamaba/NewLondonCo/Mohegan.htm.
Quote
1861 Census of Persons on Mohegan Reservation
he following named persons reside on the Mohegan Reservation, and belong to, or are connected with the Tribe, June 1861. Some of the data on my copy of this census is unreadable, most of the birth, death & marriage records can be found at the Montville Town Hall, Route 32, Montville, Ct. Montville was once part of New London, called the North Parish, and early records


Doing a search on some of the surnames on the online 1880 census records on the LDS website turns up a community of 11 families living right next door to each other,  with 42 members , 38 who were recorded as Native American .

I am not finding the Ledyard area Pequots in the 1880 census. They may be recorded as a tribe in records from that time period, but if they are it's not as easy to find as i thought. 
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: BlackWolf on April 02, 2009, 04:38:45 am
Moma_Porcupine and Rattlebone, I'm curious to what you all think of the Lumbee Tribe?  I believe they are a mixture of mulattos ( blacks and whites ), and Indians.  I think the issue of what tribe they are decendent from is debated.  Some say Cherokee, Tuscarora, Croatan, Cheraw.  I don't think anything is really clear?

I think they can document existance in that area since the  late 1700's.  But some say they were mulattos.  But evidence does show, at some point they mixed with Indians.  Should they be considred a historic tribe from that area?

And what if they are a mixture of various tribes?  Or lets say that we know they are of INdian decent, but we do'nt know what tribe.  ( I think there were DNA TEst done on a cross section of the population that showed many of them have Indian ancestry.

Should they be considred a "New Tribe"  ( Meaing Indians who lost the customs of their old tribes just starting a new tribe?  I think thats why they don't want to go thourgh the BIA, because they cannot adhere to BIA standards.

 
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: bullhead on April 02, 2009, 05:16:14 pm
here is a link that might help some of you .
http://www.lumbeetribe.com/http://

they claim cheraw ,they have been trying to gain full fed status now for over a 100 years.
blackwolf do you know any of these lumbee`s. I do,they are aboriginal & white.
i am sure some also have black ancestors as well,alot of tribes do.I Don`t think there is ONE tribe out in that area that can claim they are pure cherokee or Saponi or meherrin or chowan etc.
they are a tribe,what makes you think they lost there traditions.How could you suggest that they are/might be a NEW TRIBE.
I find it interesting how you label these native people {I believe they are a mixture of mulattos " blacks and whites " ,and indians }.
they couldn`t be indians, some with white and black ancestors.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: BlackWolf on April 02, 2009, 06:17:18 pm
Quote
I Don`t think there is ONE tribe out in that area that can claim they are pure cherokee or Saponi or meherrin or chowan etc.

What area do you mean? cause the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in NC has a full blood community.  True, a lot of enrolled members are mixed bloods.  But there are Full blood cherokees in NC.

Quote
they claim cheraw ,they have been trying to gain full fed status now for over a 100 years.

some of them also claimed Cherkoee in the past.  If they claim Cheraw, then why not lable themselves as such.

Quote
I find it interesting how you label these native people {I believe they are a mixture of mulattos " blacks and whites " ,and indians }.
they couldn`t be indians, some with white and black ancestors.

I never said they weren't Indians.  They'd still be Indians even if they mixed with black and whites.  I stand by that statment.  They are a mixture of mulattos and Indians.  Just like there are a lot of people in my tribe who are mixed with whites and Indians.  But it still makes them Indian.  Whats the problem with that statement regarding the Lumbees beign mixed?  Are they not?

Quote
they are a tribe,what makes you think they lost there traditions.How could you suggest that they are/might be a NEW TRIBE.

I suggest they may be a new tribe because the evidence does'nt seem to be clear as to exactly what Historic Tribe they are decendent from.  Why were they recognized first as Croatan Indians?  And what is their historic langauge? 
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: bullhead on April 02, 2009, 09:27:39 pm
blackwolf, i didn`t say that there are no fullblood cherokees or saponi`s or meherrin or chowan.I clearly said { I DON`T THINK THERE IS ONE TRIBE out in that area that can claim they are pure }: yes i am talking north carolina, south carolina ,virgina, the lumbee are in north carolina eh.I think most tribes have mixedbloods today.

you refer to these aboriginal people as MULATTO`S you said { BLACKS and WHITES } and indian.

you also say should they be considered a new tribe{ meaning indians who lost there customs of there old tribes just starting a new tribe?}
they have been a native community to some degree for hundreds of years.
i don`t have a right to speak for the lumbee, which is why i put there website up here,i was hoping you might ask them some questions,they have people to speak for them.
the reason i posted the first time should be obvious,  it was to simply point out your disrespectful crap.feel free to twist this one around to.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: BlackWolf on April 02, 2009, 10:15:39 pm
Quote
you refer to these aboriginal people as MULATTO`S you said { BLACKS and WHITES } and indian.

I said mixed with Mulatto.  Big difference.  And I did say I agree that they are Indian. 

Quote
you also say should they be considered a new tribe{ meaning indians who lost there customs of there old tribes just starting a new tribe?}
they have been a native community to some degree for hundreds of years.

200 years is a short amount of time.

Quote
it was to simply point out your disrespectful crap.feel free to twist this one around to.

What exactly was disrespecful? 

I still say they are not a historic tribe, but a mixture of differnt Tribes.  If anyone has any evidence that they are historically decendent from one  particular tribe, then feel free to post it.

Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: koyoteh on April 03, 2009, 01:04:49 am
are the lumbees that tribe that was created by that famous white explorer?

If not the lumbees , then what tribe was that then? I forgot this explorers name, but he started a colony, and this colony decided to live like indians and so called themselves a new tribe from that point on. I never knew details of the rest of this historical account.
I never heard that they were a mix. I never heard how the native tribes treated them thereafter. Only that they came to be.
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Scott Brainard on April 03, 2009, 02:12:17 am
Sounds like the story of Prince Madoc, a Welsh explorer purported to have traveled to America with a group of colonists around the 11th or 12th century. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoc
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Rattlebone on April 03, 2009, 02:55:05 am
Moma_Porcupine and Rattlebone, I'm curious to what you all think of the Lumbee Tribe?  I believe they are a mixture of mulattos ( blacks and whites ), and Indians.  I think the issue of what tribe they are decendent from is debated.  Some say Cherokee, Tuscarora, Croatan, Cheraw.  I don't think anything is really clear?

I think they can document existance in that area since the  late 1700's.  But some say they were mulattos.  But evidence does show, at some point they mixed with Indians.  Should they be considred a historic tribe from that area?

And what if they are a mixture of various tribes?  Or lets say that we know they are of INdian decent, but we do'nt know what tribe.  ( I think there were DNA TEst done on a cross section of the population that showed many of them have Indian ancestry.

Should they be considred a "New Tribe"  ( Meaing Indians who lost the customs of their old tribes just starting a new tribe?  I think thats why they don't want to go thourgh the BIA, because they cannot adhere to BIA standards.

 


 I beleive they are the remnants of tribes that were decimated by warfare and disease that joined up with Tuscarora people who decided to remain in their homeland.

 I have seen some Lumbee that looked Indian, some that looked black, some that look white, and some that look like a mixture of the three. Of course "looks" and BQ are not something I really use when determining who is Indian or not.

  I think they should be considered Indian, and given status as Indians accordingly. The feds have put various tribes together on the same reservation and calls them all a "tribe" for it's own reasons. So that in mind they should be ready to recognize a group of people that banded together for survival in the face of American government and populace aggressions and predations against them.

Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: frederica on April 03, 2009, 02:49:54 pm
The Lumbee are considered  "Indian" by the Feds.  They have received that recognition in the mid 1950's, not the benefits.  They just do not have the entire package and that is what they have been fighting for.  http://www.lumbeetribe.com/
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: BlackWolf on April 03, 2009, 11:29:59 pm
 
Quote
I beleive they are the remnants of tribes that were decimated by warfare and disease that joined up with Tuscarora people who decided to remain in their homeland.

Thanks Rattlebone.  I guess that was the point I was trying to make.  I just was'nt sure of the details of the Tuscaroras now that you mention it like that.  So I guess the Tuscarora were the dominant tribe the others joind up with.  So they are Indians composed of blood from various tribes, and that also mixed with others. But to me, Indian is Indian. And now they are a distinct people, ( The Lumbees ).  I don't think anyone would disagree with that. 

Do you or anyone know if any of the tradiions or customs from the dominant tribe or any of the other tribes. ( the Tuscaroras, ) were maintained?  Or did their tradions and customs evolve into something distnict?
Title: Re: State Recognized Tribes
Post by: Moma_porcupine on April 04, 2009, 01:19:39 am
Hey I agree with Rattlebone ...   ;D   Not that I know enough about this to have any opinion except about the general principals. This seems to be one of those situations where I wonder what the feds expect ? From what I read there doesn't seem to be any reasonable reason not to recognize the Lumbee as a tribe.

There doesn't seem to be any doubt this group of people is of Native descent and has always maintained their identity as a Native community even if peoples specific tribal origins have gotten a bit confused by absorbing other peoples into the community.

In my mind anyways, thats really different than if some people in a community where no one / almost no one in their families have been recorded as Indian for over a hundred / hundred and fifty years decide to get together and declare themselves a tribe on the basis of ancestors who did identify as Indian but who were further back than a great grand parent. 

I'm not sure where exactly it seems fair to draw a line as there is many factors to consider and every situation is different, but I am of the impression the large majority of tribes that have "come out of hiding" in the past 30- 40 years are making claims that are very doubtful. It sounds like some States are recognizing some of these questionable groups as tribes , which is probably not helping the people who are legit receive the respect they deserve. 

There is another thread discussing these complicated definitions below.

http://newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=846.0