Author Topic: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes  (Read 22795 times)

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4792
BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« on: November 06, 2010, 02:55:05 pm »
Different from the BIA Recognition Database, this thread is about BIA docs that specifically expose certain groups. Had passed on to me a doc that exposes in detail three groups, one who've come up quite a bit.
SECC- Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy
NWCWB- Northwestern Cherokee Wolf Band
RCIIB- Red Clay Intertribal Indian Band

http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc-001404.pdf
I think it important to post or summarize large parts of its 84 pages. Brief summaries of what's in it:

Pgs 1-10:

SECCI began in 1976 in Leesburg GA. There's no evidence of any Cherokee political org in southGA prior to that, after the Trail of Tears.

"...the SECC is a recently formed overtly multitribal association of individuals recruited into membership who believe themselves to be of Indian descent, with 14 bands spread over 4 states, with at large members in over 37 states."

NWCWB is a breakaway group in Oregon, less than 3 years old at the time of the doc.

RCIIB was formed in Ooletowah TN and broke away from the SECC, and was less than a year old at the time of the doc. None of the three groups have any evidence of continous existence or proof of Indian descent of individual members. Up to 37 different tribes claimed, but virtually no members of any 3 groups had any proof.

SECC run out of the "chief's" office in Leesburg. There are no clusters of members living close together. Most members joined by mail after responding to ads. No proof of descent required. Same true for other 2 groups.

Pgs 10-13: Summary of Cherokee history

Pgs 15-

"Chief" William Jackson's arbitrary way of running the SECC was what drove away the other two groups.

Interesting list of dubious character

During the mid-1970's there was an organization located in Quitman, Georgia, (Brooks
County) referr .ng to itself as an Indian entity, the title of which was Etowah
Cherokee Nation. This organization was headed by a Chief Malcolm "Thunderbird"
Webber, who sl.bsequently claimed to be a Lumbee and a Kaweah Indian
and in April
of 1980 petitiolled the United States as Principal Chief of the Kaweah Indian Nation
under 25 CFR ~ 3 for Federal acknowledgment. Chief "Thunderbird" Webber'S Kaweah
Indian Nation ~ HS found not to be an Indian Tribe and his petition was denied (see
Smith 1984).
At the same point in time, located in Cairo, Georgia (Grady County),
just 35 miles WE!st of Quitman, was the Tama Reservation, headquarters of the Lower
Muskogee Creel' TJ~ibe-East of the Mississippi, Inc. This group was headed by Chief
Neal McCormic { and his wife Peggy. Like Webber, the McCormick's petitioned the
United States for Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe under 25 CF R 83 Hnd
also were denij~d (Smith 1981). What these two groups shared in common, other
than proximity, Wl~re that they recruited openly for members to join the "tribes"
and that--though limited in the case of the Creeks--the~T accepted people as members
who were not of the tribal designation indicated by their organizational names.
Moreover, the leaders of these two groups knew each other personally, and according
to Peggy McCormick Venable, Malcolm Webber visited her on several occasions at
Cairo during C ~ee\{ powwows and even indicated a desire to join the Creek group.
Both these Ind.un-·named organizations were equidistant from Moultrie, Georgia in
Colquitt Count~, the birthplace and family home of William R. Jackson and his
brother James Jackson. As adults, however, James had moved some 30 miles southeast
and had settled in Quitman where he farmed, while William had moved some 30 miles
northwest and ~;ettled in Albany where he has worked for 20 years as a civil servant
in a local FedE ral facility.
No documentary evidence has been provided or found
which indicates that the Jackson brothers were involved with any Indian organizations
prior to the IT id-1970's. William R. Jackson, now Chief William "Rattlesnake"
Jackson, joined both organizations-Creek and Cherokee-during this period. In a
notarized affidurit on Lower Creek Muscogee Tribe letterhead stationary, signed by
Chief Neal McCormick and dated September 29, 1977, is the following: "To Whom
It May Concern:: William R. Jackson is a member of the Lower Creek Muscogee
Tribe East of the Mississippi. He is a 1/2 Cherokee Indian with a Federal Roll
Number" (McCol'mi<~k 1977).
William "Rattlesnake" Jackson mentions joining Webber's
organization in an undated letter sent to John A. Shapard, Chief of the Branch of
Federal Acknowledgment, B.I.A.: "The first I ever heard of Webber was in 1975 or
1976. My brother, Jim 'Little Hawk' Jackson was a member of Webber's so called
nation, they persuaded me to join. Webber moved from Atlanta, Ga. to Quitman, Ga."
Jim "Little HaHk" Jackson, it appears, was more than just an ordinary member of
Webber's Etowah Cherokee Nation. During his involvement with this group, he was
Chief Jim "Running Deer" Jackson, National Vice Principal Chief of the Nation.
After Webber flov4ad to Albany, Georgia in the fall of 1976, Jackson still retained
the same title and Indian name, and a new addition was placed on the letterhead as
well as a signif l(~ant change. The organization was now the United Cherokee Nation,
and listed as Grand Council Chief Medicine Nian was Chief Charles I1Little Eagle"
Capach, a man who was to figure prominently in the establishment of the SECC
after Webber ll!ft Albany. Though records do not show that Jim Jackson was ever
a member of the Lower Creek Muscogee Tribe, he does credit this group with helping
-15-
United States Department of the Interior, Office of Federal Acknowledgement NWC-V001-D005 Page 16 of 84
to start the S ECC: "But it was the Lower Creek Muscogee Tribe east of the
Mississippi that got us going. Six or eight years ago at a Creek powwow in Cairo,
we got organized" (Wilkins 1970).
Regardless of the type of relationship these three groups may have had in their
formative periods in southern Georgia during the mid-1970's, by late 1977 they were
all at odds ~vith each other. Sometime after the formation of the SECC,
William Jackson wrote a "Open Letter to M. L. Webber," in which he claims he is
a "registered Cherokee" and challenges Webber to "prove your Cherokee blood." At
this point in time, 'William Jackson apparently did not know that Webber was claiming
to be a Lumbee, not a Cherokee, and that Webber's production of a newsletter
titled The Lumbee Nation Times was published under Lumbee auspices. Having
disposed of any ties with Webber and the United Cherokee Nation, the dissociation
of the SECC w·t:h the Lower Muscogee Creek Tribe was to follow. In a joint letter
dated somewha: later than the general period under discussion, Chiefs William and
Jim Jackson ar.d Charles "Little Eagle" Capach wrote to the B.I.A. stating that
the Lower Mus]{ogee Creeks had everyone in Georgia believing that they were "true
Federal roll Indi,ans." They further alleged that the Creeks had a monopoly on state
and Federal funds for Indians in Georgia, and that the Creeks had told them if the
Jacksons and CapHch didn't join them, they would "stop at nothing" to keep the
Cherokee orgar.ization from growing (Jackson, Jackson &: Capach 1978). Relations
with the Creeks had obviously been ended sometime before this letter.
Whatever the nature of the relationships between these groups in southern Georgia
and however 10.1g these relationships lasted, it is at least certain that these groups
were mutually influential. All of them recruited members through advertising, the
organization str uctures were similar, and the assumption of perceived Indian names,
dress, artifacts, and speech was well established in each group. In fact, this genre
of Indian organization was becoming known as a standard phenomenon within the
Indian community. Sometime in the late summer or early fall of 1976, Chief Malcolm
"Thunderbird" ~i ebber moved his Etowah Cherokee Nation operation from Quitman
to Albany, Geoq~ia.. There, with the support of Capach and William Jackson, Webber
continued solicitin€~ memberships and accepting money from his new recruits. For
part of this time, Webber was the guest of William Jackson. This situation lasted
only a matter of weeks, until, as William Jackson stated, the local members in
Albany got "disgusted" and "just quit" (Field Data 1984a). The exact time of Webber's
departure from Albany was never recorded, but it probably occurred around mid to
late September of 1976.
It would appear that Chief Malcolm "Thunderbird" Webber left Albany, Georgia
sometime prior to September 24, 1976, the date of a local newspaper story titled
"Redskins invade city; to cleanse earth of palefaces." Webber is not mentioned in
this story, whil4~ three other Cherokee "chiefs" are, so it is roughly at this point in
time that Webber and his influence no longer make themselves felt on the SECC.
This local new:;paper account (source not cited) tells of plans to reactivate the
Cherokee tribe in the State of Georgia with a large gathering of Indian leaders in
Albany on Januiry 1 of 1977. Along with Chief "Little Fish" Evans, "Chief William
Rattlesnake Jal!kson, Jr. and Chief Council Medicine Man Charles Little Eagle
Capach, in a rEcent interview, told of plans to resume the Sacred Council Fire and
Pip [sic] Ceremony.... Part of the ceremony involves purification of the body and
spirit in the ~;uana Lodge." With Webber now out of the picture, the local
Cherokees--prineiplllly Jackson and Capach--turned their attention to organizing and
formalizing the SECC.
-

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4792
Re: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2010, 02:51:36 pm »
A list of docs on failed recognition efforts is at:

http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/AS-IA/OFA/ADCList/PetitionsResolved/index.htm

The best way to find the group you may be looking for and what the BUAsaid about them is to click the link, then the group's name, followed by clicking Proposed Finding, which gives the most information.

Pretty important to note that not all the groups that failed to get recognition are fake or wannabe tribes. Some are groups of actual Indian people that failed to meet all seven BIA criteria. The most common reason for failing to get recognition was that a tribe had dispersed somewhat and its people didn't necessarily stay under one political authority.

Of those groups listed as failing to get federal recognition, the ones we've discussed at NAFPS that certainly deserve to be considered fakes or exploiters are:

Kaweah Indian Nation, CA (#70a) (eff. 6/10/1985)
United Lumbee Nation of NC and America, CA (#70) (eff. 7/2/1985)
Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy (SECC), GA (#29) (eff. 11/25/1985)
Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band, SECC, OR (#29a) (eff. 11/25/1985)
Red Clay Inter tribal Indian Band, SECC, TN (#29b) (eff. 11/25/1985)
St. Francis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont, VT (#68) (eff. 10/1/2007)

All these groups are not only NOT tribes, they are also virtually or entirely made up of non-Natives.

Some of the other groups at that list need more looking into.




Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2010, 03:15:54 am »
educatedindian said
Quote
Some of the other groups at that list need more looking into.

I pretty much agree with educatedindian, that not all groups that failed or fail to get Federal Recognition are fakes.   The link that educatedindian posted shows some of the Tribes that petitioned for Federal Recognitions but were denied.  

http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/AS-IA/OFA/ADCList/PetitionsResolved/index.htm

There are 28 of them on that link.  The “proposed findings” links shows the research that the BIA Researchers and Genealogist did on the particular Tribes that petitioned.  With that said, one would assume that these people are probably some of the best trained “Native American Genealogist” out there, since this is their job.  Many denied petitions are actually not denied on the basis of being Indians, but on many other complex factors.  And like educatedindian said, not all the ones denied are fakes.

But with that said, I was particularly interested in the alledged SE Tribes of Creeks and Choctaws that were denied.  It is fairly well known that many claims of Cherokee heritage based on oral stories in the South East are bogus, but I was wondering about claims of Creek and Choctaw heritage that are also fairly prevalent throughout the South East.   (Maybe not as much as claims of Cherokee ancestry, but nevertheless, somewhat common).  
If stories were made up about a particular ancestry, it probably occurred on, or in the vicinity of that Tribe’s land base or previous land base.  The proposed findings on the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians from Alabama is an interesting read.  They are a State Recognized Tribe based in Alabama.  I would have probably assumed that they were a Tribe that fell through the cracks before reading the findings.  But after reading the links educatedindian posted, I see that the BIA finding seems very similar to the findings of some of the rejected Cherokee Tribes.  
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 03:26:28 am by BlackWolf »

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2010, 03:18:33 am »
Starting at about page 8, and according to the document, it shows that the BIA Researchers and Genealogist found virtually no known evidence of Indian ancestry for the close to 4,000 enrolled members of the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians.  It’s a fairly lengthy document, but that’s the basic conclusion.

http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc-001636.pdf

Quote
In numerous cases, evaluation and Verification of the petition's genealogical claims to Indian Ancestry indicated that persons described as American Indian By the petitioner, and claimed on the petitioner's list of “Known Indian Ancestors" were clearly not of American Indian Ancestry.

What’s also interesting is that of the 3,960 enrolled members of the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians, only 40 of them have documented Indian Ancestry.  And strangely enough, those 40 were not even deemed to be descended from the group of Choctaw Indians that they claim to be descended from.  I guess this would be explained by proposing that the Indian Ancestors because of discrimination didn’t have records.  But that wouldn’t really explain why no single Indian ancestor could be found in any previous generation.  
But the findings go further than that on page 14, by stating that in many cases, "Indian ancestry is disproved".  I’ve also found some articles in particular on this tribe saying that DNA test was done on over 300 of their members, and in virtually every case, no discernable American Indian ancestry was found.  The findings did show evidence exclusively of African American and White ancestry.  
« Last Edit: December 07, 2010, 01:14:03 am by BlackWolf »

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2010, 03:19:45 am »
At the same time, the BIA proposed findings of this particular tribe seems to suggest that virtually no one in this group is descended from Indians that were supposedly Choctaw and living in Washington and Mobile counties in Alabama.  These findings also seem to be corroborated by the DNA tests that were done on a cross section of the Tribe. 
Moma_porcupine did some research on DNA in this thread which is very interesting and may explain at least part of the findings.  I haven’t seen all the other Choctaw and Creek denials, but it would be interesting to know if there were similar findings.

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1375.0

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4792
Re: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2010, 08:48:55 pm »
Some of the other groups seem to be made up of largely people who delude themselves or others they are truly Native.

------------
http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc-001644.pdf
p. 5
The MaChis LClwer Alabama Creek Indian Tribe has only been identified as
Indian and Creek since its incorporation as a non-profit organization in
1982. Since thalt time it has been identified as a Creek Indian tribe in the
local newspapers of Enterprise, Alabama and by the Coffee County School
District, the U.S. Department of Education, the Town of New Brockton, and the
State of Alabama.
None of the federal census records identified group ancestors as Indian, and
the State and. county records which so identified one current member and four
ancestors are of questionable validity >>>because they have been altered
.<<< The
group is not identified in any local or regional histories of the counties in
southeastern Ilabama nor in any scholarly works on the Creek Nation.

p. 6
The MaChis I,OWEtr Alab .. a Creek Indian Tribe does not presently constitute,
and has not historically formed. a community distinct from surrounding
populations. 1'he group contends that it is descended from those Creek
Indians who toclk land allotments rather than remove to Indian territory in
the 1830s aI~ that their ancestors purportedly then fled to a cave in
Covington COUI,ty. Alabama to hide from hostile whites and soldiers.
No docUllenta,ticln has been found to substantiate the existence of a
predecessor tribe or Indian community to the group. The tribe which
inhabi ted thE Lelwer Creek town of Tamali, which the petitioner claims was the
aboriginal heme of "the KaChis Indians." emigrated to northwestern Florida
around the year 1800 and was absorbed in the Seminole tribe.
The group claims that they are the descendants of a Lower Creek Indian named
KaChis, from wh,o. the group derives its name. No historical reference could
be found to document the existence of MaChis. No evidence could be found to
verify any link:age between the early 19th-century Lower Creek individuals in
Alabama whom the petitioner claims were its ancestors and the family lines of
the group's membership.
The group holds that its ancestors managed to escape forced removal from
Alabama by biding in a cave in Covington County. Federal census records
indicate that most of the group's ancestors did not take up residence in
Alabama until long after the period of Creek removal (1827-1837), and that
none of the primary families were living in Covington County prior to the
1880s.

p. 9
The possible single link between the KLACIT and the historic Creek Nation may
be through one family line which traces back to Nancy Jane Bass, who may have
been the great-great granddaughter of Nahoga or Nancy Moniac, an Indian woman
fro. the Upper Creek town of Tuskegee (See Genealogical Report, MLACIT).
Only about 20 percent of the current group membership could claim descent
from this possi:ble Indian ancestor. However, these 56 KLACIT members would
then be Upper Creek descendants rather than Lower Creek as the petition
maintains.

------------

The report goes onto debunk quite a lot of poorly done genealogy claims.

It does mention a number of times that about 1/5 of the group might be Upper Creek descendants, rather than Lower Creek as they themselves think.

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4792
Re: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2010, 09:10:57 pm »
And this group was comically inept, a tiny bunch in Colorado claiming to be Munsees.

----------

http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc-001389.pdf
p. 1
We recommend that the Munsee-Thames River Delaware Indian Nation (hereinafter
referred to as MTD) not be acknowledged as an Indian tribe....

The MTD is a recently formed group which did not exist prior to 1974. The group
focused around one individual and did not evolve from a tribal entity which has existed
on a substanUally continuous basis from historical. times until the present. It had no
characteristIcs of an Indian tribe which has maintained tribal relations over the years.
Concurrently:, no evidence was submitted by the petitioner or found by the staff which
indicates that the group ever had any political existence prior to 1974, the date of its
founding. There  is substantial evidence that the group never existed as a political
entity.
The MTD appears to have been a very recent collection of six to 20 individuals, with
no previous social interaction, familial connections, common cultural or historical
knowledge. Although the members claimed to be of Indian descent, none have
documented:, or appear to be able to document, their Indian ancestry. At present, the
MTD appears to have disbanded entirely.

p. 3
While most of the members of the petitioning group resided in the Pueblo Colorado
Springs area during the 1976-77 period, there is no evidence to indicate that the MTD
was anything more than a group of disparate individuals attracted to the activities of
Clyde Richard Bungard, the leader and self-proclaimed chief and priest of the group.
The MTD was organized and it s organization was repeatedly modified through the
efforts of Clyde Richard Bungard. It has no Delaware or Munsee antecedents.

p. 4
Other than the tribal roil, which only lists names and ages of members, no genealogical
information wus submitted with the petition. A review of newspaper accounts and
other records, however, verified the existence of slightly more than half of ·those
listed on the MTD roll. Researchers were unable to verify the existence of the
remainder of those listed on the roll. Clyde Bungard, organizer of the petitioning
group, did not provide evidence to substantiate his claim to Indian ancestry. In an
article published in Wassaja in March 1978, however, Bungard wrote that he was
descended from B. Delaware, Elahtut, and a non-Indian who Elahtut married "back
east," in the 18BO's.
Members of Elluhtut's sister's family living today, however, deny any relationship and
claim that Elahtut was unmarried, Childless, and never left Oklahoma. Although in
several instances Bungard listed the place of his birth as Santa Clara County,
California, no record could be found of his birth in Santa Clara County or California
State vital records. A record of his birth, however, was found in the State of Ohio
vital records. This record indicates that Bungard and his parents were non-Indian.
One former member of the group claimed that most of the 34 names on the MTD roll
were fictitious, created by Bungard to impress state and Federal authorities with the
size of his following.


p. 7
....in the Spring of 1974, a news item appeared in the Pueblo
Chieftain newspaper relating to the arrest of a non-Indian female friend of Bungard.
This incident and the series of incidents which followed show how Bungard's concept of
tribal chief developed, how the idea of the MTD originated, and show how
Bungard, who referred to himself as William Lee Little Soldier, managed to establish a
relationship with one agency of the Federal government.
Bungard's friend was arrested by an officer of the Colorado State Division of Wildlife
for the illegal possession of 50 eagle feathers.
Newspaper accounts of the incident
report that Littlei Soldier had "recently moved to Pueblo."
In defense of the woman, Bungard told authorities that he was the owner of the
feathers; that one of them had been owned by the "Thames Delaware" tribe for 90
years; and that neither he nor his friend were aware of the eagle feather law. He
maintained, however, that as a Delaware Indian he had a right to possess the feathers.
Despite testimony by Bungard that the feathers belonged to him and that as a
Delaware chief he was entitled to possess them, on November 12, 1974, the woman
was convictec of illegally possessing eagle feathers. The verdict was appealed.
During the early stages of the incident (in June) Bungard made no known claim to
being a chief. His claim that he was a Delaware chief was later added to his account
as the trial progTessed, probably in November.

During the period between the original verdict and the hearing of the appeal, Bungard
worked to perfect his Indian story, developing two typewritten forms, one entitled
"Request to Receive Eagle Feathers For Use In Religious Ceremony" and a second
entitled, "Certification of the Tribal Status of Applicant," both of which were
forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Bungard or an associate apparently filled out the first form. The second stated in part
that William Lee Little Soldier "according to Bureau files is a Thames Delaware chief
and priest ... Canadian Bureau files list him as a hereditary tribel (sic) Chief and a
member of the Snake Clan and Eagle Nob Religious Society". The certification carried
the signature of Shirley Plume, then Superintendent at the Standing Rock Agency. The
"Request to Receive 11 was dated May 10, 1974 and the certification was dated
May 20, 1974.. Plume's signature, however, was apparently forged. She swore in an
affidavit three years later that she did not provide, or sign a certificate for William
Lee Little Soldier
; that his name was not on the Standing Rock Sioux roll; that her
agency held membership records of the Delaware tribe; and that neither she nor her
staff was acquainted with or ever had any dealings with Bungard or Little Soldier.

There is no indication as to where or how Bungard got Ms. Plume's name. Ms. Plume,
however, received nationwide publicity on her appointment as the first Indian woman
superintendent.

p. 9
In the summer of 1976, Bungard visited the East coast, where he attended a "powwow
of the Delaware nation" near Bushkill, Pennsylvania. A skeptical reporter noted
Bungard was "blond and a half breed." Bungard told the reporter that there were 39
members in his bribe in Colorado. This is the first recorded instance in which he
actually claimed he had a following. Researchers, however, could find no evidence to
substantiate that. he had any such following at this time.
There is substantial evidence to indicate that Bungard made efforts to recruit
members. These, were apparently recruited at large and not from any existing
community. There is no evidence that any of them, including Bungard, could establish
Indian ancestry from the Delaware tribe or any Indian tribe which existed historically,
as required by SE!ction 54.7(e).
While on the 1976 trip in the East, Bungard apparently made . his first serious attempts
to recruit me members, with a modest degree of success. Researchers were able to
establish that at least three people moved to Pueblo, Colorado, at Bungard's behest
during this period.
There is also some indication that Bungard attempted to raise money through a
program of selling memberships in the Delaware Nation for $22.42.
The fee was in
part to cover the expense of the sweat lodge ceremony, which Bungard admitted was
occasionally held in a shower stall when time did not permit construction of an
authentic sweat lodge.
This appears to be his first efforts to develop a group or
organization.
According to one former member of the group, the requirements for membership were
1/16 degree Inolan blood, but no proof was required. There is also no indication that
the members were required to be of Delaware descent or of one specific tribe. The
applicant simply was required to fill out a personal information card. "Anyone could
join if they just eame to Little Soldier and filled out a card," an informant told an
Acknowledgment researcher.
No documentation was submitted nor could the Federal Acknowledgment researchers
find any evidence that any members of the group were of Munsee or Delaware descent.
None of the individuals listed on the MTD roll applied for per capita payments in the
Delaware judgllumt award in Indian Claims Commission Dockets numbered 298 and 72.
There was a belief in the group that at least two of Bungard's followers were enrolled
with recognized Indian tJribes, Navajo and Chippewa. Both claimed to be 1/16 degree
Indian. Neither could be found on the rolls of the respective tribes claimed. There
was one member of the group who was apparently associated with an unrecognized
group.

p. 10
Following the POWWOW in Pennsylvania in 1976, Bungard and his wife, Princess White
Deer (aka Wanda W. Lee), spent part of the summer in Woodstock, New York, a
community of artists. While at Woodstock, he convinced a number of people to
support him finllneially in the purchase of land and the construction of an authentic
"big house" for the Munsee-Thames River Delaware. He was able to raise enough
money to pay $500 down on four acres of land near Marbletown, New York, which was
to be purchased for a total cost of $7,000. However, one informant noted Bungard's
backers withdrew their support and the Munsee-Thames River Delaware Nation made
no further payments on the land.
After a lengthy exchange of letter and telephone calls between Bungard and the seller,
no further payments were made. The mortgage was foreclosed in early 1981, after
further attempts to contact Bungard failed.
Back in Colorado, in the Fall of 1976, Bungard made a second effort to acquire land
using an approfu!h similar to that used in Woodstock, New York. The Pueblo Chieftain
newspaper carrie:d an article in January 1977 entitled "Fair-Skinned Chief Dreams of
Center," in which Bungard presented plans for a commercial campground and Indian
cultural center, and noted that donations were needed to fund the project. Apparently
unsuccessful in his attempts to solicit funds for his project, Bungard attempted to have
the State of Colorado donate 160 acres of land to the MTD. Although the attempt
failed, he did manage to arrange a personal meeting with the Executive Director of
the State's Commission on Indian Affairs, from whom he requested assistance with his
project. The Executive Director refused to cooperate and wrote the Bureau of Indian
Affairs questioning the legitimacy of the group. Bungard was successful, in securing
some exemptions as an Indian tribe from Colorado sales and use taxes through other
channels in July 1977.
In a further effort to gain State recognition of the MTD and his position as leader,
Bungard made an unsuccessful attempt to receive authorization from the State to
issue driver's licenses and license plates to "tribal members." Despite his failure to
receive the authcll'ization, he developed a "homemade" driver's license and license
plates for his personal automobile and used them until his new wife, Vickie Lee Little
Soldier (aka Vickie Jarvis), was arrested for driving an unregistered vehicle and driving
without a valid driver's license. The license plates for the automobile were hand
painted with the letters DPL-1, above which was painted the word, "Diplomat."
The incident involving the automobile and driver's license was one of a series of
brushes with the law, dating from March until July 1977. These ultimately resulted in
the arrest of Bungard, Vickie Jarvis, and several other members of the group on
charges of possession of more than one ounce of marijuana. Bungard pled guilty to the
charge of possession and was subsequently sentenced to six months in jail. All but one
month of the jail. sentence was suspended in favor of two years probation.
With police scrutiny of the group intensified as a result of the marijuana incident,
dissension increased among Bungard's associates, and they began to leave the area.
-----------

Groups like this make you want the govt to sue for frivolous waste of taxpayer funds.

Offline Diana

  • Posts: 433
  • I Love YaBB 2!
Re: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2010, 10:43:50 pm »
Starting at about page 8, and according to the document, it shows that the BIA Researchers and Genealogist found virtually no known evidence of Indian ancestry for the close to 4,000 enrolled members of the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians.  It’s a fairly lengthy document, but that’s the basic conclusion.

http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc-001636.pdf

Quote
In numerous cases, evaluation and Verification of the petition's genealogical claims to Indian Ancestry indicated that persons described as American Indian By the petitioner, and claimed on the petitioner's list of “Known Indian Ancestors" were clearly not of American Indian Ancestry.

What’s also interesting is that of the 3,960 enrolled members of the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians, only 40 of them have documented Indian Ancestry.  And strangely enough, those 40 were not even deemed to be descended from the group of Choctaw Indians that they claim to be descended from.  I guess this would be explained by proposing that the Indian Ancestors because of discrimination didn’t have records.  But that wouldn’t really explain why no single Indian ancestor could be found in any previous generation.  
But the findings go further than that on page 14, by stating that in many cases, "Indian ancestry is disproved".  I’ve also found some articles in particular on this tribe saying that DNA test was done on over 300 of their members, and in virtually every case, no discernable American Indian ancestry was found.  The findings did show evidence exclusively of African American and White ancestry.  



Hey Blackwolf, it appears the fraudulant Mowa are having a little hissy fit over on ICT. Intersting read be sure to read the comments. http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/opinion/White-privilege-in-action-at-Haskell-109196799.html

Sunray: White privilege in action at Haskell
By Cedric Sunray

Story Published: Nov 19, 2010

(Story Updated: Nov 19, 2010 )

What do the MOWA Choctaw, Rappahannock, Mattaponi, Pamunkey, Nanticoke, Abenaki, Yuchi/Euchee, Canadian Ojibwa, Upper Mattaponi, Chickahominy, Chickahominy Indians Eastern Division, Haliwa-Saponi, North Carolina Tuscarora, Houma and Lumbee have in common?

First, none of them are “privileged” enough to exist as federal tribes. Second, which makes “null and void” to any practical person the belief that only members of federally recognized tribes are true Indians, they each attended all-Indian boarding schools. You know, Haskell, Bacone, Chilocco, Cherokee, Carlisle, and Choctaw Central, where Indian students were sent hundreds of miles from their homes generation after generation. Yes, even the boarding school in Cherokee, N.C. The irony will hit later.

This past year, the Haskell Indian Nations University admissions office rejected an application for attendance from a 1950s graduate of Haskell Institute. She was not turned away based on grades, aptitude or any other matter related to achievement or lack thereof. This Haskell Institute alumnus was not allowed to pursue a higher education degree at the very school where she was a high school graduate, because her tribe, the Nanticoke in Delaware, is not recognized by the federal government. At Haskell, the BIA listed her as half Indian by blood. Years ago, Haskell was one of few options for an accredited high school education for the Nanticoke community as the area white and black schools prohibited their attendance.

Also rejected were a member of the MOWA Choctaw in Alabama, a daughter of a MOWA Choctaw who attended the Bureau of Indian Education funded Choctaw Central High School near Philadelphia, Miss., as well as the grandson of a Haskell attendee from the Pamunkey reservation in Virginia. Prior to these rejections, Haskell alumni from both federal and non-federal tribes who attended historically Indian schools met with the Haskell administration on the campus in Kansas in order to understand how they and their descendants could not attend their own alma mater. Five minutes prior to meeting, after some elders had traveled in excess of 1,000 miles to attend, the former Haskell president called in sick leaving the remaining Haskell staff members with no decision-making authority. Because who wants to tell a brown, identifiable alumni that they are not Indian anymore?

At first, administrators at the BIE rejected the notion that “non-recognized” tribes had ever attended their schools. Office of Federal Acknowledgment Director Lee Fleming, a white-identifiable member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, did one better a couple of years earlier when presented with the information by saying that “sometimes the federal government makes mistakes.”

After documentation was presented to the BIE showing lengthy attendance, BIE administrator Stephanie Birdwell, another white-identifiable member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the tribe whose administration sanctions the wholesale attack on “non-federal” Indians, responded, “Bahttp://www.indiancountrytoday.com/opinion/White-privilege-in-action-at-Haskell-109196799.htmlsed on the documentation and information enclosed with your letter, the Haskell Endangered Legacy Project (H.E.L.P.) consortium’s support of Haskell alumni promotes a valuable effort in showcasing the rich history that the respective ‘non-federally’ recognized tribal communities have played in the Haskell legacy.”

The letter then goes into technical reasons why these tribes can no longer attend, which relate to changed rules of attendance based on federal status. Interestingly, at the time of the original attendance of these “non-federal” tribes, a one-quarter blood requirement for attendance was the rule. Recently, members of federal tribes with blood degrees dropping into the 1/1,024 plus range have attended. This is supposedly justified by the use of the term sovereignty, which many of its users couldn’t spell two decades ago, much less interpret. The Native American Rights Fund explains it best with its Oct. 14, 2010 website posting, “Tribal existence does not depend on federal acknowledgment.”

This year, the BIE toured around the nation asking for suggestions concerning Haskell’s current difficulties and alumni, both federal and “non-federal,” voiced their concerns as to the exclusion from attendance of Haskell alumni, their families and communities. These comments were removed from the final report. Many of these federal alumni had attended with those whose families are now excluded. They sat in the same classrooms, lived in the same residences, socialized, dated and intermarried with one another. Today, the MOWA Choctaw alone have nearly 30 different federal tribes married into our small community, including Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma citizens and their children and now, in some cases, grandchildren.

It is unfortunate how a new concept has evolved which represents only those of “federal” tribes as legitimate Indian people. With the large amount of racially white members on large, descendant-based federal tribal rolls, it is also kind of ironic that they would take issue with the identities of small, historically marginalized communities such as ours, but I believe an “anonymous” genealogical packet sent to me showing my family ancestry through Census records as white, mulatto, black and negro gets down to the core of the real issue for them. People may want to read Oglala Lakota Charles Trimble’s recent article, “Racism should be behind us all in Indian country.”

And then there are the attacks on both my first name Cedric (a name common amongst the black population of the Southeastern United States) and last name Sunray (a European surname that to some sounds as though I am a “Hollywood Indian”). I guess they couldn’t spend five seconds on ancestry.com to see the origin of that one. But the “tribe shopping/multiple tribe” accusation was the best. Our tribe, the MOWA Choctaw, descend from Choctaw and to a lesser degree, Cherokee, and a few other tribal lineages. My enrolled family members got a kick out of that one.

But this all of course is the reality of white privilege in America and Indian country. And I should know. I look as white as the next guy.

Cedric Sunray is an enrolled member of the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians and a former Haskell student. His research on “non-federal” tribal attendance at Indian boarding schools can be found at www.helphaskell.com. He can be reached at helphaskell@hotmail.com.














« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 10:51:15 pm by Diana »

Offline clearwater

  • Posts: 105
Re: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2010, 05:15:34 pm »
For some reason the direct links to the .pdf files above are all broken now.

With a little diggning, it seems BIA has moved these files on their server. To find the new links, simply edit the URL, for example:

http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc-001404.pdf

... replace "/public/" with "/xofa/" and the documents can be viewed.

so the new link is:

http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc-001404.pdf


The links from the "Petitions Resolved" seem to all be functioning, and will take you to the updated links for all Petitions.

clearwater

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2010, 01:16:18 am »
Thanks Clearwater, I updated one of the links I had for the MOWA proposed findings. Its working now.

Offline Waboose

  • Posts: 2
  • Kimmberly Ghostkeeper (yes, that's my real name)
    • Home Sweet Home
Re: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2011, 01:26:32 pm »
Ahneen from Ontario Canada.

I just joined this group yesterday. I've always encountered wanabes (Oh, you're Native, eh? My grandmother was an Indian Princess.) But I've never encountered this extent of fraud and/or charlatans!
Openly recruiting for band members? (I guess we're called "tribe members" in the US ) How does one go about doing that? How does one initiate the conversation? HOW DOES ONE SLEEP AT NIGHT? ???

Megwetch my friends, you're opening my eyes to new worlds of dishonesty. ;)
Kimm Ghostkeeper, Anishnaubek, Dokis Rez.

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2011, 04:05:25 am »
I’ve looked over some of the other BIA findings from the list and from what I can see so far, the Miami Nation of Indians from Indiana that was denied Federal Recognition, ARE WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE.  From what I could find out, one of the main issues with their denial for Federal Acknowledgement is the fairly recent fragmentation of their community, and there are some reasons behind that.  I would say these people ARE LEGIT without a doubt. I think it’s important here to separate the Wannabee Tribes from Unrecognized Tribes.  

Here are the proposed findings for the Miamis.  They only missed one of the criteria for Federal Aknowledgement.  

Proposed Findings against Acknowledgment of the Miami Nation of Indians

http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc-001520.pdf
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 04:58:09 am by BlackWolf »

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4792
Re: BIA Recognition Documents Exposing Wannabe Tribes
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2011, 09:57:59 pm »
The Miami of Indiana are in a situation similar to a few other genuine tribes. These tribes were officially "terminated" in the Termination Era, the 1950s. The feds dropped recognition and forced them to assimilate, often forcing them to sell off their lands and putting a lot of pressure on them to break apart. Now the BIA claims because they lost their tribal govt for a few decades and their land bases, in most cases, permanently, somehow they can't be recognized again. The Miamis were first re-recognized, then had that pulled only a few years later before the decision was final. I saw some of the Miami speak when I was in grad school at Purdue, and was at a conference with the head of their language program at the time, Darryl Baldwin. There's a world of difference between them and the dubious groups out there. I liked the phrase Baldwin used and keep quoting it, "family reunions that decided they were a tribe."