NAFPS Forum

General => Research Needed => Topic started by: Paul123 on September 08, 2009, 11:46:56 pm

Title: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 08, 2009, 11:46:56 pm
I know that this is am old thread but...

At the start of it BlackWolf said.
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 ).


And Rattlebone said:

 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.

And Moma_porcupine  said (but to be fair, was talking about a certain Tribe)

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.


The first 6 or 7 posts here seemed like it would get to an answer, But the thread kinda wandered off topic and became more of a discussion as to whether a group had the right to split off from a Tribe and form a new Tribe. Then discussed a few specific Tribes with some agreement of their status as "Real". But  I don't see that the original question was ever answered.

So I will just ask the question in a very blunt way:

What about,  The Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama?
I am not a member, (but I am thinking about it). This is why I want to know. To me their story sounds just  like the Eastern Band except it took place in Alabama instead of North Carolina. ( with a few differences of course).  In the case of N.C. it seems that they just got tired of hunting for them and finally gave recognition. In Alabama they passed laws forbidding the Indians from being a Tribe, owning property and speaking the language (and of course Testifying in court) .  So when those laws were changed the Tribe re-formed. (Well that's my take on this any way).
I have never heard anyone (other than the CNO Task Force) come right out and say that they are "Fake", and give a good reason other than, (they're not federally recognized). I am talking about people that know who they are, that have researched them or had dealings with them. Most people that talk about them almost (kinda sorta) say that they are "Real", but don't come right out and say that either. So could someone here either come right out and say that, or give good reason why they're not "Real"? Other than, they're not federally recognized. Or is that the only reason?
Title: Echota Cherokee
Post by: wolfhawaii on September 09, 2009, 01:00:25 am
I have not had any direct contact with the "Echota Cherokee tribe of Alabama" so my comments are more general in nature. I have had contact with a variety of unrecognized "tribes" and in general while many people in them seem sincere, they are mainly so distantly connected that they have lost their roots if they had any to begin with. There are many scammers, posers, and flimflammers out there. I have had my share of experiences with them. The desire to reconnect is a strong one, and there are many unscrupulous people who will take advantage of that. In general, the recognized nations tolerate heritage groups who learn from real sources, while actively seeking legal sanctions against wannabe "tribes" as the legal sovereignties rest in the Nation as a whole and its legally continuous character, and not in the descendents of individuals who left the Nations long ago. My advice: skip the nonfederally recognized "tribes", take some road trips to real communities, and do something helpful.
Title: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on September 09, 2009, 02:23:57 am
I have not had any direct contact with the "Echota Cherokee tribe of Alabama" so my comments are more general in nature. I have had contact with a variety of unrecognized "tribes" and in general while many people in them seem sincere, they are mainly so distantly connected that they have lost their roots if they had any to begin with. There are many scammers, posers, and flimflammers out there. I have had my share of experiences with them. The desire to reconnect is a strong one, and there are many unscrupulous people who will take advantage of that. In general, the recognized nations tolerate heritage groups who learn from real sources, while actively seeking legal sanctions against wannabe "tribes" as the legal sovereignties rest in the Nation as a whole and its legally continuous character, and not in the descendents of individuals who left the Nations long ago. My advice: skip the nonfederally recognized "tribes", take some road trips to real communities, and do something helpful.


Quote
My advice: skip the nonfederally recognized "tribes", take some road trips to real communities, and do something helpful.

Well this statement here is a grey area. This would be because there are dozens, if not hundreds of tribal bands in the state of California that have not been recognized. Of course, I am told that in California that some Indians are still recognized as Indians by the federal or state governments for certain human services, but are still not part of recognized tribes. This may be even if those people are full blooded or close to it.

 Then there is the situation of a court case in California back in the 90's in which a man who the government acknowledged was Indian, was denied being allowed eagle feathers.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

Coyote v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
(no F.Supp. citation) 1994 E.D. California
Case Details
Printible Version
Summary:

Defendant brought a motion after the USFWS denied his application to obtain eagle feathers for religious use where defendant failed to obtain certification from the Bureau of Indian Affairs that he was a member of a federally-recognized tribe. The court held that this requirement is both contrary to the plain reading of that regulation and arbitrary and capricious. The lack of federal recognition on the part of defendant’s apparent tribe may result only from a lack of application to the BIA on part of that tribal group. Thus, the court found the requirement had no bearing on one’s Indian status, especially in this case where the BIA has previously recognized the defendant as an Indian for other purposes. For further discussion on formerly recognized tribes and the BGEPA’s Indian religious exception, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.


Judge Beck, Magistrate J. delivered the opinion of the court.


Opinion of the Court:

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brought this motion challenging the actions of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), its Director, John Turner, and its Pacific Regional Director, Marvin Plenert, in refusing to accept Plaintiff’s application for an Eagle Feather Permit pursuant to the Eagle Protection Act (EPA) 16 U.S.C. §§ 668 et seq., and its implementing regulations 50 C.F.R. §§ 22.1 et seq. Plaintiff has also named as Defendants Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior of the United States; Eddie Brown, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs; Ronald Jaeger, Area Director, Sacramento Area Office and Harold Brafford, Superintendent, Central California Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (collectively the BIA defendants). Plaintiff maintains that the refusal of the BIA Defendants to certify to the USFWS that Plaintiff is an Indian in support of his application for an Eagle Feather Permit was contrary to the law and/or arbitrary and capricious.

DISCUSSION

Congress enacted the Eagle Protection Act in 1940 and in October 1962 Congress amended the Act "to permit the taking, possession, and transportation of specimens (of eagles or eagle parts) ... for the religious purposes of Indian tribes, ..." where "the Secretary of the Interior shall determine that it is compatible with the preservation of the Bald or the Golden Eagle ...". 16 U.S.C. § 668(a).

The Secretary has enacted regulations controlling the issuance of Eagle Feather Permits for Indian religious purposes. 50 C.F.R. § 22.22. The application procedures require that the individual Indian applicant must submit an application which includes the following information:

(1) Species and number of eagles or feathers proposed to be taken, or acquired by gift or inheritance. (2) State and local area where the taking is proposed to be done, or from whom acquired.

(3) Name of the tribe with which the applicant is associated.

(4) Name of tribal religious ceremony(ies) for which required.

(5) Applicant must attach a certification from the Bureau of Indian Affairs that the applicant is an Indian.

(6) Applicant must attach a certification from a duly authorized official of the religious group that the applicant is authorized to participate in such ceremonies.

50 C.F.R. § 22.22.

The genesis of this action is the refusal of the BIA Defendants to certify that Plaintiff is an Indian as required by 50 C.F.R. § 22 .22(a)(5). The BIA maintains that because Plaintiff is not a member of a "federally recognized tribe" under 25 C.F.R. Part 83, it cannot and will not certify that he is an Indian for purposes of the application. Plaintiff maintains that both the action of the USFWS and/or the BIA are arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

Plaintiff maintains (without dispute from the Defendants) that he is 11/16 Mono/Choinumni Indian. He further maintains that the BIA has acknowledged that both the Mono’s and Choinumni’s are tribal Indian groups within California and descents of aboriginal California tribes indigenous to the San Joaquin Valley.

In a confused and unconvincing argument, Plaintiff maintains that the BIA’s requirement that an applicant be a member of a federally recognized tribe before it will certify that he or she is an Indian for the purposes of 50 C.F.R. § 22.22(a)(5) is a change in policy or interpretation of the regulations or is a new interpretative rule which was promulgated without compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. § 552. Plaintiff maintains this must be so because the Eagle Feather Permit regulations of 50 C.F.R. were enacted in 1974 and the regulations in 25 C.F.R. part 83 concerning federal recognition of Indian tribes were not promulgated until 1978. However, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that there has been any change in the policy or interpretation of the regulations by either the USFWS or the BIA.

Plaintiff cites United States v. Deon, 476 U.S. 734 (1963) and Rupert v. Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 957 F.2d 32 (1st. Cir.1992) for the proposition that the regulations had previously been interpreted only to require that the applicant be an Indian as opposed to a member of federal recognized tribe in order to qualify for an Eagle Feather Permit. Neither of the opinions cited support this conclusion. Rupert dealt with the denial of the permit to a non-Indian pastor of an "all race" church which was denied on the basis that no members of the congregation were Indians. There was no distinction made or discussed concerning federally recognized or non-recognized tribes and the holding in the case was merely that non-Indian religious groups were not entitled to permits. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that there is any change in policy or general interpretation of the regulations at issue.

Plaintiff also maintains that the BIA’s action in failing to certify to the USFWS that he was an Indian was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the plain reading of 50 C.F.R. § 22.22(a). In response, the BIA Defendants maintain that their action was not arbitrary and capricious and point out that the application itself includes a tribal membership certification form to be filled out by the BIA.

Administrative actions may be set aside only if they are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law". 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Agency actions will not be found to be arbitrary and capricious unless there is no rational basis for the action. Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 831 (9th Cir.1986).

The record shows that the BIA refused to provide a certification that Plaintiff is an Indian for purposes of 50 C.F.R. § 22.22 because Plaintiff is not enrolled as a member of a reservation or rancheria, i.e., not affiliated with a federally recognized reservation or rancheria. The USFWS rejected the application on the basis that it was incomplete without the BIA Certification. Defendants convincingly argue what is undeniably true: That the purpose of the exemption for Indian religious ceremonies in the Eagle Protection Act is to "preserve the cultural and religious ceremonies of Indian tribes enabling them to continue ancient customs and ceremonies of deep religious emotional significance". [FN1]

FN1. Comments of the Assistant Secretary of Interior, Frank Briggs, S.Rep.No.1986, 87th Congress, 2d Sess. at 6 (1962); H.R.Rep. No. 1540, 87th Congress, 2d Sess. at 4 (1962).

However, Plaintiff’s application was rejected not because it was determined that he was not associated with an Indian tribe, nor because it was determined that the tribal religious ceremony(ies) requiring eagle feathers which were listed on his application were not bona fide historical tribal rituals, nor because of the lack of a certification from a duly authorized official of the religious group that the applicant is authorized to participate in the ceremonies. The application was denied as incomplete because the Bureau of Indian Affairs refused to certify that the applicant was an Indian. The BIA has read into the certification requirement set forth in 50 C.F.R. 22.22(a)(5) the requirement that the applicant be a member of a "federally recognized tribe." It appears that this requirement relates more to subparagraphs 3 and 4 of 50 C.F.R. 22.22(a) than to 5.

In order for an Indian tribe to be federally recognized pursuant to 25 C.F.R. Part 83 there must be evidence of:

(1) Repeated identification by Federal authorities;

(2) Longstanding relations with state governments based on identification of the group as Indian;

(3) Repeated dealings with a county, parish or other local government in a relationship based on the groups Indian identity;

(4) Identification as an Indian entity by records in courthouses, churches, or schools;

(5) Identification as an Indian entity by anthropologists, historians or other scholars;

(6) Repeated identification as an Indian entity in newspapers and books;

(7) Repeated identification and dealings as an Indian entity with recognized Indian tribes or national Indian organizations.

25 C.F.R. § 83.7 (in part)

or other indicia of affiliation included in 25 C.F.R. § 83.7. Lack of such federal recognition, however, may indicate only that no application for federal recognition has ever been made or, as may be true in the case of California Indians, that historical dealings with the existing local and federal governments are not sufficiently developed because of the cultural practices of the tribes or the late annexation of California into the United States. Indeed the BIA in its own regulations defines an Indian tribe as "... any Indian group within the continental United States that the Secretary of Interior acknowledges to be an Indian tribe" and an Indian group as "any Indian aggregation within the continental United States that the Secretary of the Interior does not acknowledge to be an Indian tribe". 25 C.F.R. 83.1(f) and (g). Thus the question of whether or not a tribe is federally recognized primarily has to do with factors separate and apart from whether the tribe has "ancient customs and ceremonies that are of deeply religious or emotional significance to them". Comments of the Assistant Secretary of Interior, Frank Briggs, i.d..

Defendants maintain that "... BIA is not in the business of defining who is an Indian and who is not an Indian without any context." [FN2] It is clear from the exhibits that the BIA recognizes Plaintiff as an Indian for other purposes. The BIA has issued a certification for purposes of enrollment of Plaintiff as a California Indian under the Act of September 21, 1968 (82 Stat. 860 & 861) and enrollment in the California Judgment Fund Roll of California Indians certifying that he is 11/16 Mono/Yokut. However, as previously stated, the fact of federal recognition of an applicant’s tribe is, at best, only one indicia of whether or not the issuance of an Eagle Feather Permit is appropriate and necessary to "continue ancient customs and ceremonies that are of deep religious and emotional significance".

FN2. Federal Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment at page 6, lines 3-4.

Accordingly, this court agrees with Plaintiff that the BIA’s interpretation of the 50 C.F.R. 22.22(a)(5) requirement that it certify that the applicant is an Indian to include the requirement that the applicant be a member of a federally recognized tribe is both contrary to the plain reading of that regulation and arbitrary and capricious.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, in part, the BIA Defendants are ordered to certify to the USFWS that Plaintiff is an Indian for purposes of his eagle permit. Plaintiff’s request that the USFWS be ordered to issue the permit is DENIED, the USFWS may process his application in the normal course of its operation.

The court further ORDERS that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff in accordance with this order.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Clerk, U S District Court, Eastern District of Calfiornia at Fresno.

That on 7/8/94 I served a copy of the attached

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

by placing said copy in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the persons hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the United States mail at Fresno, California; or by placing said copy into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk’s Office.

Served by Mail: Served by Inter-Office Delivery

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

JAY PETERSEN

CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES

510 16TH ST., SUITE 301

OAKLAND, CA 94612

EILEEN SOBECK

U S DEPT OF JUSTICE

P O BOX 78369

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044-7369

E.D.Cal.,1994.
Top of Page
Title: Echota Cherokee
Post by: wolfhawaii on September 09, 2009, 03:00:48 am
Interesting case, Rattlebone, and you make valid points. There are many gray areas for those of us who are unenrolled, some of which are difficult to navigate through. I wonder if there has ever been a successfull application for a feather permit for members of state recognized Cherokee tribes? I know one guy out here in Hawaii who claimed he had one who was a member of one of the Missouri Cherokee "tribes" but I never saw it and his claim was doubtful. I passed by the headquarters of the NCOLT in MO one year and met the "chief"; she didn't even understand the basics of Cherokee hospitality.
Title: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on September 09, 2009, 03:42:17 am
What about,  The Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama?
I am not a member, (but I am thinking about it). This is why I want to know.
... ... ...
I have never heard anyone (other than the CNO Task Force) come right out and say that they are "Fake", and give a good reason other than, (they're not federally recognized).

If you search the forum on: Echota Alabama
a bunch of people have mentioned them on here.

I assume you've seen the things from the Task Force, but I'll include a couple links as long as the topic is up.

* Non-recognized 'Cherokee tribes' flourish (http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/2389/Article.aspx)

* Cherokee Nation (Fraudulent Indian) Task Force (http://taskforce.cherokee.org/)

Some comments here: http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=776.msg4275#msg4275

and here: http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=870.msg5691#msg5691
Quote
However, of particular interest are the 3,591 individuals who sprang from nowhere to become the Echota Cherokees. The group is active in the southeast and particularly in Alabama . The ultimate irony is that even though American Indians do not accept or acknowledge these groups and despise their attempts to emulate real American Indian people, white people readily accept them because they dress and act these stereotypical roles as perpetuated by Hollywood .

Title: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on September 09, 2009, 04:04:57 am
Interesting case, Rattlebone, and you make valid points. There are many gray areas for those of us who are unenrolled, some of which are difficult to navigate through. I wonder if there has ever been a successfull application for a feather permit for members of state recognized Cherokee tribes? I know one guy out here in Hawaii who claimed he had one who was a member of one of the Missouri Cherokee "tribes" but I never saw it and his claim was doubtful. I passed by the headquarters of the NCOLT in MO one year and met the "chief"; she didn't even understand the basics of Cherokee hospitality.

 You know even though I made the points I did, I still was in agreement for the most part with your previous post in which you told the Paul to avoid non federally recognized tribes. I don't know what part of the country he is in, but if he is in the South Eastern United States, it would be a good idea to avoid non recognized tribes. This is because there are very many bogus tribes out there with people preying on those who don't know any better. If he is somebody who possibly doesn't know how to tell the difference, then he would be a person that could be preyed on.

 As far as the Echota Cherokee he mentioned, I believe them to be a bogus tribe which as you can see has been also pointed out by Kathryn. I personally believe that any group of cherokee other then the Eastern Band, UKB, or ONO are bogus ones and are not to be trusted.

 
Title: Echota Cherokee
Post by: LittleOldMan on September 09, 2009, 09:49:42 am
Paul I live in North Central Al.  I have relatives who are on some state rolls.  I also have relatives who are on the Dawes Roll.  But, since I am not a direct lineal descendant I cannot be a member of the CNO.  My BQ is not high enough to be a member of the Katoowa and I am too old to be a member of the EB.  I choose not to be a member of one of the State tribes, friends yes, support the culture, yes. I find some good people there who are serious about their heritage but I also find a lot of wannabeism and ignorance.  If you decide to pursue a State Membership please do diligent research on the group.  Take into consideration historical, organizational rules, and talk with a lot of  people at public tribal gatherings.  Walk a careful path here.  Make your decision on facts proven and not on what sounds good at the time.  I will pass on some advice that a Cherokee Elder gave to me many years ago when I first approached this subject.  Knowing that I was of Cherokee descent his words to me were " Why do you need a card to prove something that you already are ."   "LittleOldMan 
 
Title: Echota Cherokee
Post by: educatedindian on September 09, 2009, 02:02:25 pm
This part definitely deserves its own thread.

I should also point out there are several groups calling themselves Echota. There's one in Florida also. Plus aren't there two in Alabama, one calling itself the Deer Clan. And even groups in Tennessee and Denver (?!).

There is also a Georgia group, and another Georgia state would be tribe put out a warning on them.
http://www.georgiatribeofeasterncherokeeechotafire.com/

In this thread the CNO Task Force objected to them getting public funds for language preservation.
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1011.msg5530#msg5530

This site claims they have state recog.
http://www.ucan-online.org/culture.asp?culture=280&category=15

Probably the strongest claims I found against them are charges their chair, Charlotte Stewart Hallmark, committed fraud and perjury. Basically the site claims she fabricated claims of having degrees from several universities and lied about being an offificial of the tribe in her testimony. Since I didn't see anywhere on the site an author or owner of the site, I'd look for definitive proof elsewhere, perhaps take the site as simply a starting point for investigation. There's also further links leading to scans of docs.
http://cheroketribe.tripod.com/
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: LittleOldMan on September 09, 2009, 04:14:30 pm
Al: Two or three years ago there was a split in the tribe.  Politics and money.  I do not see any of them often.  I will see what I can find out but anything that I discover will probably in the realm of hearsay and I will not offer any information other than tagged as such.  Any other posts will carry, verifiable in the legal sense, documentation.  "LOM"
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Moma_porcupine on September 09, 2009, 10:09:33 pm
from the first post in this thread...
Paul123
Quote
And Moma_porcupine  said (but to be fair, was talking about a certain Tribe)

Quote
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.

Just to be clear

What I originally said was in reply 22 in the thread on State recognized tribes, below

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2192.0

The quote Paul123 posted above of me saying the evidence of a particular tribes continuos historical existence was well recorded, was refering to the Pequot tribe NOT the Echota Cherokee ...
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 09, 2009, 11:23:34 pm
All,
I welcome the discussion and the thread move, thanks.
I can't respond to all of it of course and as I started this as a fact finding thread I will have to digest what I feel is proper and of course disregard what I think is not. One of the things I will dismiss right off the bat is the things said in a link posted to http://cheroketribe.tripod.com/. This is clearly a web site put up by a disgruntled "crank". I see posts like this all the time, mostly about the Sheriff in my home county <ha,ha>. but you can find posts just like this about any/every person in public office.

I seem to find the things said in a link posted by Kathryn's post #4 to be one side of the story (that's a good thing)  yet others say something else, 
I think the point that the link was trying to make was rebutted by frederica in the post right under it that said.

Don't blame you. Anyone that is talked about pilfering ceremonial items should be banished. There are some States that have a good format for recognition of these States tribes. Some do not.  The Echota Cherokee, at one time, claimed around 20,000 members. All 1/4 or above. There has been some questionable dealings also. I heard they has some unexpected visitors checking them out, not too long ago. Many of their members are legitimate. It's a shame when the bad overrides to good. frederica

so this is why I ask for discussion. Like the discussion in another thread about The United Cherokee Indian Nation. The points over there are all bad ones but the thread replies are on topic and seem to have validity (even if it is bad).


Moma_porcupine made a point of pointing out that she was talking about the Pequot tribe NOT the Echota Cherokee ...

I don't think anyone would have thought that I was saying that you said this about the Echota Tribe of Alabama as I did say at the start of quoting you "(but to be fair, [she] was talking about a certain Tribe)". I was pointing out that you gave your personal recognition to a Tribe that wasn't Fed. listed. As did several others in the original thread about several other Tribes.   
(sorry if you took that quote otherwise)

educatedindian  said "I should also point out there are several groups calling themselves Echota...."

As I understand it there is one "Echota Tribe of Alabama" with 7 sub clans. The Deer and Wolf, Paint and ect... The sub clans are semi-autonomous but under the main Tribe's control. I may be wrong on this but that is what I got from their web sites.

As for Tribes in Georgia or other states,,, well I was only asking about this one Tribe in Alabama. With the intent of discussing "Their" merits and/or faults.  bringing up these other tribes only leads to lumping them all into the same lot that the CNO does. and I would point out that some of the Tribes that the original thread discussed favorably are also on the CNO's list. 

@Rattlebone ,
"As far as the Echota Cherokee he mentioned, I believe them to be a bogus tribe which as you can see has been also pointed out by Kathryn".

I think that Kathryn only used the rubber stamp from the CNO's Task Force to try to make her point. ( I mean no disrespect to Kathryan), but I feel that she gave me someone else's opinion, not hers.

 And so far LittleOldMan seems to be the only one here that knows anything about this Tribe. But to be Most fair and open for discussion, would you Please give me your thoughts as to why you personally think they are Bogus? Throughout the original thread you seem to be very open to the idea that "Real" Tribes do exist that don't have the required BIA documentation to get fed approval. You made points in a much better way than I could have ever done. I especially liked your points about Tribes splitting off from other ones. 


@LittleOldMan
   You said that two or three years ago there was a split in the tribe over politics and money.
Please go on,,, This is what I was asking for. A discussion about "This Tribe" from those who know, (hell I already know what the CNO thinks about them). Tell me more.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on September 10, 2009, 02:01:30 am
I think that Kathryn only used the rubber stamp from the CNO's Task Force to try to make her point. ( I mean no disrespect to Kathryan), but I feel that she gave me someone else's opinion, not hers.

I quoted people like Richard Allen and the Cherokee task force because they are Cherokee.

Only the Cherokee people have the right to say who is and isn't Cherokee.

[OT]: I'm not Cherokee, so I don't get to decide. My opinion as a non-Cherokee? OK, since you seem to be asking: Heritage groups, who are essentially non-NDNs who may or may not have a tiny bit of distant NDN ancestry, but are trying to build a new identity out of that imagined history, don't get to decide, either. They're not "tribes". They are not culturally NDN.  Some of them may be quite sincere, but most of them are just playing dress-up and are doing damage to real NDN people in the process. Especially when they appropriate funds that should go to real tribes, misrepresent the culture, and damage real nations' sovereignty rights. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. Most of them are just confused white people and rather embarrassing. Sorry. No disrespect intended here, either. You asked. :-)

P.S. I do have family members who have some Cherokee ancestry, but are not enrolled.  I would be mortified if they joined one of the fake tribes. From looking at that Echota Alabama website, and listening to what actual Cherokee people have to say about it... yeah, in my opinion that group should not be calling themselves a tribe. For instance, they do not have a hereditary clan system, they decided to form "clans"' that appear to be based on what county one lives in: http://echotacherokeetribe.homestead.com/clans.html. They're one of the heritage groups and they shouldn't misuse the terminology that way. *shrugs* Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 10, 2009, 09:43:00 am
Kathryn,
Thanks for the reply.
You said "Only the Cherokee people have the right to say who is and isn't Cherokee. "

Well I think That was pointed out in the original thread, when they were discussing Tribes splitting off. I.E. "200 migrating lakota started off new in another place"
It was said very well by koyoteh

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........



Well I think in this case and with the EB of NC the Original Tribe left them. (when they went to OK.).


Again let me say that I know that there are a lot of Fake tribes out there. I am talking about the ones that are REAL but for what ever reason fell through the crack in the BIA's floor. and in particular this one tribe of Echota Cherokees in Ala. to see if they are or are not one such Tribe.  




Allso:
" Sorry. No disrespect intended here, either. You asked".

I did ,,, and none taken, Thanks
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on September 10, 2009, 04:47:12 pm
Kathryn,
Thanks for the reply.
You said "Only the Cherokee people have the right to say who is and isn't Cherokee. "

Well I think That was pointed out in the original thread, when they were discussing Tribes splitting off. I.E. "200 migrating lakota started off new in another place"
It was said very well by koyoteh

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........



Well I think in this case and with the EB of NC the Original Tribe left them. (when they went to OK.).


Again let me say that I know that there are a lot of Fake tribes out there. I am talking about the ones that are REAL but for what ever reason fell through the crack in the BIA's floor. and in particular this one tribe of Echota Cherokees in Ala. to see if they are or are not one such Tribe.  




Allso:
" Sorry. No disrespect intended here, either. You asked".

I did ,,, and none taken, Thanks


 The quote by Koyoteh is an idea that is not, and should not be used to try and justify a group of people trying to form a tribe based on a "claimed" common ancestry.

 Sure due to some circumstances in history a tribe may have broken into more then one, or due to encroachment by colonial powers and their people, a portion of a tribe may have split off and went some place else. For instance it is true that portions of the Cherokee Nation and other tribes from the Southeast did in fact move west before the main body of the tribes were put on the trail of tears. However just because such things did happen, it does not mean a group of people that claim to be from one of those groups can just meet up with other people of the same claims and "form a tribe."

 Those groups that did split off, or remained behind, for the most part did retain their tribal culture and governments. To be recognized as a tribe by the federal government, the group claiming to be a tribe must prove they have had a continuing government over their people. The recognition process really has nothing to do with culture, and really it can't considering the federal government itself has done everything it could to stamp out native culture, and for some tribes it has managed to do that. However as I have already pointed out, a big part of the recognition process is proving you have had a continuing tribal government. Heritage groups and people coming together claiming some native ancestor obviously do not have any historic proof of such things, and therefore should not be granted recognition. Most likely such groups who can not provide the burden of proof, are most likely frauds.

 On the other hand of the spectrum you have countless bands and tribes in places like California who are not claiming some distant ancestor, but are actually full bloods if not close to it. Even in these cases the Federal government is not granting recognition over some bizarre technicality, or has not because of the great length time it takes for the BIA to even start the recognition process with a certain group. Many who have gained recognition have actually had to wait decades for it. People like these Echota Cherokee are a burden there as well, because they are causing more backlog in the recognition process.

 There is more to being a tribe, part of a tribe, and federal recognition then just maybe having some claimed ancestry in common with another individual.

 

 

 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 10, 2009, 11:43:32 pm

Rattlebone ,

"People like these Echota Cherokee are a burden there as well, because they are causing more backlog in the recognition process".

I don't think they are a backlog burden in the recognition process.
They are not seeking federal recognition, They are quite happy with their relationship with the state of Alabama. (and to be fair,,, I can see why if they are only in it for the money so no need to mention that).


"The quote by Koyoteh is an idea that is not, and should not be used to try and justify a group of people trying to form a tribe based on a "claimed" common ancestry".

Well it sure sounded good when Koyoteh said it. No one seemed to dispute it then.


"For instance it is true that portions of the Cherokee Nation and other tribes from the Southeast did in fact move west before the main body of the tribes were put on the trail of tears. However just because such things did happen, it does not mean a group of people that claim to be from one of those groups can just meet up with other people of the same claims and "form a tribe."

Uhhh? isn't that what the EBNC did? or was it Dragging Canoe?  no wait, I got it ,,, It was the CNO.  or do you mean that they can't do that today instead of 2 or 3 hundred years ago.


Help,, It just dawned on me that I sure seem to be playing the devil's advocate here. It could be that if I were to align with this group and someone pounced on me about it I doubt I would be able to debate the issue if I don't know what all the issues are. each of you have brought up some issues that I need to understand. Don't let my rebuttals lead you to think that I have made up my mind regardless of what anyone says. I don't think that I would enjoy myself very much if every time I turn around I have to debate someone about all of these issues. and after all there are other Tribes a lot closer. Like the Cherokees of Central Florida, They are only 50 to 60 miles from my home instead of 1000. ;) (but I do love a good debate).


 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: wolfhawaii on September 11, 2009, 05:23:40 am
Yeah, if you want to hang out with distant descendents and wannabes, you might as well save some gas......heck, they might even make you a chief!
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 11, 2009, 06:39:03 pm
Yeah, if you want to hang out with distant descendents and wannabes, you might as well save some gas......heck, they might even make you a chief!

Hahahaha,,, Chief?  ya think,,,

(when ya get through patting yourself on the back for coming up with such a Grrreat response,,, ya might wanta do your homework).



I have heard NDNs say that they could tell a wannabee within the first 30 seconds of a conversation with them. Well I could tell where you were coming from and where you would go with this thread within your first sentence.

"I have not had any direct contact with the "Echota Cherokee tribe of Alabama" so my comments are more general in nature".

OR IN OTHER WORDS:
I don't know what the hell I'm talking about but I'm going to tell you how it is anyway !


Excuse me if I sound grumpy here but it is replies like yours that I made clear from the start of this thread that I had heard before or were of no use because you don't know what your talking about. Your just talking... You proved this when you poked fun at the Cherokees of Central Florida. And I'm not going to tell you why you made such an ass out of your self, I'll let you find out that one for your self.






 

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on September 11, 2009, 07:32:14 pm
Yeah, if you want to hang out with distant descendents and wannabes, you might as well save some gas......heck, they might even make you a chief!

Hahahaha,,, Chief?  ya think,,,

(when ya get through patting yourself on the back for coming up with such a Grrreat responce,,, ya might wanta do your homework).

Paul, do you have any information that would lead us to believe that the people the Alabama Echota group list as "clan chiefs (http://echotacherokeetribe.homestead.com/clans.html)" have any right to this title? It looks to me like the "chiefs" are just the person who leads the local branch of the social group. Unless there's something I'm missing here, it looks to me like when (non-NDN) Boy Scout groups call a group leader a "chief".

Unless they have some unnamed ceremonial or hereditary right to that title that has been granted, and is supported by, the actual elders of real Cherokee Nations, it seems to me to be an inappropriate and, IMHO, offensive thing to call themselves. It's especially misleading when this page: http://echotacherokeetribe.homestead.com/Chiefs.html lists actual historical chiefs of the Cherokee. By using the term in both ways on their website, they are implying that the guys who lead the county-based "clans" have the same right to that title as do the historical, actual Cherokee Chiefs.

From what I can see from this group, wolfhawaii is quite on in his assessment. If there is some "homework" you think we have neglected to do, some information that would change our view, maybe you should share it.



ETA: Wait... when you first posted, it sounded like you were angry because wolfhawaii was criticizing the Alabama group. Now that you've edited your post you seem to be upset about what he thinks about the "Cherokees of Central Florida." What Cherokees of Central Florida? What group are you talking about?
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: taraverti on September 11, 2009, 08:57:26 pm
He's talking about the Cherokees of Central Florida on this list, which is a sattelite community of the CNO, which I told him about. I was trying to be helpful, but I'm beginning to believe he has some hidden agenda.

http://www.cherokee.org/Organizations/Communities/Default.aspx

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 11, 2009, 09:07:11 pm
Yeah, if you want to hang out with distant descendents and wannabes, you might as well save some gas......heck, they might even make you a chief!

Hahahaha,,, Chief?  ya think,,,

(when ya get through patting yourself on the back for coming up with such a Grrreat responce,,, ya might wanta do your homework).



Your above quote by wolfhawaii was poking fun about the Cherokees of Central Florida not the Echota Tribe of Alabama.


You ask if I know a good reason that the Echota Tribe have any right to use the titles in question. 

If I did I wouldn't have came here asking about them would I?

But what I was hoping for was someone to discuss their merits and /or faults based on their knowledge of them not based on their dealings with other tribes that anyone would know to be fake. I guess the bad apples have so spoiled the whole barrel of apples that no one really knows the truth.

You ask/said they are implying that the guys who lead the county-based "clans" have the same right to that title as do the historical, actual Cherokee Chiefs.

Why not? if their membership elect them to these positions and follow their lead then sure. That's always been the way. (I'll site Dragging Canoe's split for proof of that) That would be like the EBofNC calling the CNO and asking if it would be OK if they elect one of their members to a given office. of course they are not going to do that. And I dare say that the Echota's won't either. They would (I guess) clear it with the Principle Chief first. I think that these clans are only semi-autonomous.


And to address your last remark about "homework" one more time.
That's what I'm doing here.  Asking for discussion and sorting out the good from the crap.
When someone (wolfhawaii) starts out by saying that they don't know the people that I am asking about but then gives me a biased opinion anyway, I put that into the crap category. I did toss out some bait and sure enough wolfhawaii snatched it right up and made an ass of his self with it. so their is nothing that he could ever say that would make me think that his opinion would ever be anything but crap.

On the other hand, LOM came into the thread and said that he did in fact know of them and that he would ask around and get back when he had something that he believed to be true. This I greatly respect. He knows what he is talking about or will find out before spouting off.

Even if the people here that didn't actually know them but had some source of info (one way or the other) that was believable (and I don't mean that web site posted by the disgruntled crank) I would consider it. I don't discount what the CNO says except that I know they have an agenda. They are just as biased against them as the Tribe itself is biased in favor of themselves.
The CNO gives NO examples of why this Tribe if Fake other than "Their not on the fed list" So that is what I ask for. examples, not crap.

@taraverti
You have been most helpful and respectful. and No I don't have ANY HIDDEN AGENDA.
There is a meeting tomorrow the Cherokees of Central Florida. I have talked to them and was invited to attend. I will be there, with hopes of being welcomed and perhaps over time accepted.  But yes I did use them as bait to help me sort out the ones here that are helpful from the ones spouting crap. 

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: taraverti on September 11, 2009, 09:22:13 pm

@taraverti
You have been most helpful and respectful. and No I don't have ANY HIDDEN AGENDA.
There is a meeting tomorrow the Cherokees of Central Florida. I have talked to them and was invited to attend. I will be there, with hopes of being welcomed and perhaps over time accepted.  But yes I did use them as bait to help me sort out the ones here that are helpful from the ones spouting crap. 



Paul, that's pretty darn manipulative of you, and not what this forum is about. For whatever it's worth, my reading of wolfhawai's reply to you was NOT to think that it refered at all to the Cherokee of Central Florida. I think you have misjudged in this case and told us a whole lot about you, that you think it's ok to set traps for posters here.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on September 11, 2009, 09:37:55 pm

Rattlebone ,

"People like these Echota Cherokee are a burden there as well, because they are causing more backlog in the recognition process".

I don't think they are a backlog burden in the recognition process.
They are not seeking federal recognition, They are quite happy with their relationship with the state of Alabama. (and to be fair,,, I can see why if they are only in it for the money so no need to mention that).


"The quote by Koyoteh is an idea that is not, and should not be used to try and justify a group of people trying to form a tribe based on a "claimed" common ancestry".

Well it sure sounded good when Koyoteh said it. No one seemed to dispute it then.


"For instance it is true that portions of the Cherokee Nation and other tribes from the Southeast did in fact move west before the main body of the tribes were put on the trail of tears. However just because such things did happen, it does not mean a group of people that claim to be from one of those groups can just meet up with other people of the same claims and "form a tribe."

Uhhh? isn't that what the EBNC did? or was it Dragging Canoe?  no wait, I got it ,,, It was the CNO.  or do you mean that they can't do that today instead of 2 or 3 hundred years ago.


Help,, It just dawned on me that I sure seem to be playing the devil's advocate here. It could be that if I were to align with this group and someone pounced on me about it I doubt I would be able to debate the issue if I don't know what all the issues are. each of you have brought up some issues that I need to understand. Don't let my rebuttals lead you to think that I have made up my mind regardless of what anyone says. I don't think that I would enjoy myself very much if every time I turn around I have to debate someone about all of these issues. and after all there are other Tribes a lot closer. Like the Cherokees of Central Florida, They are only 50 to 60 miles from my home instead of 1000. ;) (but I do love a good debate).


 

 You seem to like to compare apples to oranges, and because they are both fruit you declare them the same thing.

 What the EBC did, or what dragging canoe did is not the same thing as maybe some NDN person leaving their tribe over a hundred years ago or something like that, and then their descendant today joining up with somebody with a similar family story thinking they are NDN and trying to form a tribe.

 It just doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 11, 2009, 10:29:00 pm
OK I know that I sound like I am defending some group that I don't know much about.
First off I have no agenda, or affiliation with them other than as I said before I have talked to them.  (If I were one of them already I had better have done a better job of defending them that this).

As for wolfhawaii,,,  if he is an honorable man and tells me that he wasn't talking about the Cherokee of Cent. Fla. and that I did miss-read him I will be the first to apologize.
( given my harshness, I doubt that he would accept it.)
If he is honorable and says that he was talking about the Cherokee of Cent. Fla. because he thought they were just another fake bunch, I will still apologize for being so harsh. At this point only he knows what he meant by "you might as well save some gas".

In general I have ask about a given tribe and seem to have gotten the standard rubber stamp replies. So I used your own quotes that sounded correct to help sort it out and then everyone says--- oh , no,, that quote only applies to someone else.

I give up.

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on September 11, 2009, 11:48:41 pm
He's talking about the Cherokees of Central Florida on this list, which is a sattelite community of the CNO, which I told him about. I was trying to be helpful, but I'm beginning to believe he has some hidden agenda.

http://www.cherokee.org/Organizations/Communities/Default.aspx

Good links. Now those are the sort of groups people should be contacting if they don't live near the main population areas. Totally different from the fake tribes.

I think Paul came here hoping he'd get different advice than he'd already received elsewhere. When he heard multiple people agreeing about the problems of fake tribes, he dismissed shared opinions as "rubber stamp". *shrugs* Can't do much about it when someone already has their mind made up, I guess. Hopefully the Central FL people will be able to explain things to him.

Sorry to talk about you in the third person, Paul, if you're still listening. But I think she's right. I do think you came here with a hidden agenda. I hope the Cherokees who are living in FL can help you out.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 12, 2009, 12:59:24 am
He's talking about the Cherokees of Central Florida on this list, which is a sattelite community of the CNO, which I told him about. I was trying to be helpful, but I'm beginning to believe he has some hidden agenda.

http://www.cherokee.org/Organizations/Communities/Default.aspx

Good links. Now those are the sort of groups people should be contacting if they don't live near the main population areas. Totally different from the fake tribes.

I think Paul came here hoping he'd get different advice than he'd already received elsewhere. When he heard multiple people agreeing about the problems of fake tribes, he dismissed shared opinions as "rubber stamp". *shrugs* Can't do much about it when someone already has their mind made up, I guess. Hopefully the Central FL people will be able to explain things to him.

Sorry to talk about you in the third person, Paul, if you're still listening. But I think she's right. I do think you came here with a hidden agenda. I hope the Cherokees who are living in FL can help you out.

Kathryn, et al,,,

You have hit the nail right on the head.
Before I came here I had found 2 contradictory opinions on this subject.
That I wanted to sort out.

On the one hand was the info that I had from the tribe it's self. They came to me from a family member that told me that we had relatives there in that Tribe. So I read everything I could from their web site.  A good back story, documented linage from the split led by Dragging Canoe. State acceptance from a State that does have some tough standards. BUT Of course they have a bias. In favor of themselves.

On the other hand there was the CNO's Task force. I read all they had to say but soon began to think to myself,,, WTF??? They think the Lumbee are fake?  I know the Lumbee, personally, Their not "Fake". They may not be recognized but their not fake.  At the end of my street is my best friend (and the guitar player in our band). We have known and lived and played together for 35 years. I discussed this with him and he was surprised to learn that the CNO thinks their fake.
So:
I talked with a family member that is enrolled in the CNO and grew up with the Tribe in OK. He explained that it was all about the money. There is only so much money to go around the more NDN's the smaller their slice of pie. He said that if there was more money every time the CNO enrolled another Cherokee that you could bet your last dollar that they would be enrolling anyone that even said that they had a ggGrandmother that wore a pair of moccasins once. (he was just being funny on that but I understood).

So a web search started. The short of it is that I wound up here.

The different advice that I was hoping for here was that someone (or more) would say that they do know them and to stay away because they did this and they did that or they said this,, here is a link go look for yourself, you don't want to get in the middle of that...
or
Yea we know them their as OK as the Lumbee (or what ever other Tribe that has fell through the cracks in the BIA's floor). Like I said before LOM was the only one that said that He would check it out first.

 What I heard here was,,,  Oh yea they are a Fake tribe, just take my word for it. The CNO said so. and besides the poster just before me said so too. And the thread turned into a debate where I found myself defending a group that I don't know anything (much) about.

Because I would read one of you say something that sounded very valid but when applied here it would be pointed out that that was wrong. (by the same person that said it in the first place) Did I set a trap? yes that's what you do in a debate. I wish this thread had not have came to a debate but had remained a discussion. 

"When he heard multiple people agreeing about the problems of fake tribes, he dismissed shared opinions as "rubber stamp".

I wasn't asking about the problems with Fake Tribes,, I was only asking about this one Tribe .
And I took the replies about all of the other fake tribes and became defensive. If not down right offensive. And yes I through a trap to see if anyone here would know the difference between all of the fake tribes and the real ones.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on September 12, 2009, 01:01:12 am
OK I know that I sound like I am defending some group that I don't know much about.
First off I have no agenda, or affiliation with them other than as I said before I have talked to them.  (If I were one of them already I had better have done a better job of defending them that this).

As for wolfhawaii,,,  if he is an honorable man and tells me that he wasn't talking about the Cherokee of Cent. Fla. and that I did miss-read him I will be the first to apologize.
( given my harshness, I doubt that he would accept it.)
If he is honorable and says that he was talking about the Cherokee of Cent. Fla. because he thought they were just another fake bunch, I will still apologize for being so harsh. At this point only he knows what he meant by "you might as well save some gas".

In general I have ask about a given tribe and seem to have gotten the standard rubber stamp replies. So I used your own quotes that sounded correct to help sort it out and then everyone says--- oh , no,, that quote only applies to someone else.

I give up.



  Well since you quoted me..I can say that I have never ever supported a bogus tribe made up of people that claim some distant ancestor and think they can form a "tribe" because of it.

 I have supported mixed people, and those of a  distant ancestry if they wish to acknowledge such ancestry, and learn the culture they claim to come from and take part it in. If they do this in a good and respectful way. Getting together and saying they have a "tribe," or trying to create one is not doing things in a respectful way.

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 12, 2009, 01:12:54 am
Rattlebone,

I won't debate you on what you said vs what you meant. but it was you that through out this forum that seemed the most open when it came to this such thing. And well worded I might add.
I think that we both posted at about the same time so just read my post above and like I said before

I give up.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on September 12, 2009, 01:25:21 am
Rattlebone,

I won't debate you on what you said vs what you meant. but it was you that through out this forum that seemed the most open when it came to this such thing. And well worded I might add.
I think that we both posted at about the same time so just read my post above and like I said before

I give up.


 Through out this forum I have argued in defense of mixed people and those of even distant ancestry and their involvement in the Indian community if such things are done in a good way by them. In fact that is not much different then what most on here say either. I just might be less rigid in how I define people then others on here.

 When I have argued in defense of actual tribes who may not have federal recognition, and might only have state recognition, it has been in the defense of those who do have historical documentation that prove they are a tribe and have been since days of old.

 I admit I don't always agree with the federal recognition process, but that does not mean I agree with people forming their own tribes.

 Those people that have started off being state recognized have usually to some degree maintained an actual tribal community since historical times. This is very different then a group of people that say they have a ggggggg grandmother or grandfather that was part of Dragging Canoe's band, and therefore get together and "form a new tribe."


 Here is a list of federal requirements to be recognized as a tribe

 To be federally recognized a group must meet the following:

    To be federally recognized a group must meet the following:

    Since 1900, it must comprise a distinct community and have existed as a community from historical times;
    * it must have political influence over its members;
    * it must have membership criteria; and
    * it must have membership that consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe and who are not enrolled in any other tribe." The existence of persistent political relationship as an aspect of tribal relations is also emphasized



What is a federally recognized tribe?
A federally recognized tribe is an American Indian or Alaska Native tribal entity that is recognized as having a government-to-government relationship with the United States, with the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations attached to that designation, and is eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Furthermore, federally recognized tribes are recognized as possessing certain inherent rights of self-government (i.e., tribal sovereignty) and are entitled to receive certain federal benefits, services, and protections because of their special relationship with the United States.  At present, there are 564 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages.



http://www.doi.gov/bia/ia_faqs.html
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Moma_porcupine on September 12, 2009, 01:36:36 am
Hi Paul

I hope you don't give up, but you do seem to have some ideas about what a tribe is that suggest you haven't spent much time in a real tribal community. There are elements of continuity and being completely immersed and surrounded with people who share the same heritage and culture which just can't be recreated.It seems kind of like trying to recreate a living tree with a bunch of branches.

Maybe it's kind of like fishing. Until you expereince a real fish on the end of your line it's easy to imagine you are going to have a delious meal when all you got is a snag in some bottom mud...

I think wolfhawaii Kathyrn and Rattlebone gave you some good advice. See if there is some way you can spend some time making yourself useful in an undisputedly real Cherokee community.

Like rattlebone just pointed out , there is objective criteria which defines a tribe from a group of descendents , but this doesn't have anything to do with how nice the people are, or if someone else likes them.  Even if the person who likes them is someone you have a great deal of respect for they could still be swayed by personal feelings.

I don't doubt there was many individuals who passed as white or black who were of some Native descent, but in most situations it seems really unlikely there was whole tribal communities that hid out ( and retained their identity ) without being noticed and recorded as such for the past 150 years.

Were the Echota Cherokee were recorded as a tribe 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 40 years ago , 80 , 100 , 120, 150 years ago?

Can the people claiming to be Echota Cherokee prove they descend from the people who were repeatedly recorded as a part of this alleged Cherokee community?

I think most people familiar with this subject would agree a tribe is always / almost always a continously recognized community and consisting of people who can prove descent from this community .

Quote
He explained that it was all about the money.

I guess that might be a bias , but without substantial recorded historical evidence of a tribe that was the Echota Cherokee, it's kind of like saying people don't believe in UFO's because they are scarey.... That may be true, but it doesn't logically follow there is little green men.
 
Quote
They think the Lumbee are fake?  I know the Lumbee, personally, Their not "Fake". They may not be recognized but their not fake.

Well actually , that one is kind of confusing.... Some affiliated people in the area do seem to have been documented as a tribe, but if this website claiming to show results of a DNA study that was done of on the people claiming to be Lumbee is legit ( maybe it isn't ? ) .. It gets less clear, as very few of the matrilineal or patrilineal lines show Native decsent.

http://www.huxford.com/Genetics_Lumbee_Results.htm

The mtDNA that originated on this continent is A ,B, C, D and some types of X and I believe the only Y DNA  that seems to have originated here is Q.

I doubt a population with this small of an indigenous input is really an indigenous tribe. Which I know is strange , as the Lumbee sound like they have a strong case and a lot of records showing they exist and were thought to be an Indian tribe for a long time.

I was recently reading how there was quite a few people who were brought to the East coast as servants or slaves from India,

http://thestudyofracialism.org/about5820.html

Quote
Social historian Thomas Brown, a faculty member at Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas has corroborated this in a 2004 research paper. Brown explains that many East Indians were imported to the American colonies by way of England, arriving already Christianized and fluent in English. Others arrived as slaves who had been captured and sold. “It is impossible to confidently estimate the size of the South Asian population in the Western Shore counties, but “East Indians” outnumber “Indians” in the extant colonial records after 1710 or so,” acknowledges Brown.

Furthermore, he claims: ‘In 18th century Chesapeake, South Asians stood out from sub-Saharan slaves both in culture and appearance. Since South Asians were a minority among the slave population, the community’s perception of their distinctiveness persisted for a longer period of time.' And most surprisingly, Brown adds: ‘there was a significant contingent of “East Indian” slaves in the colonial Chesapeake.’

I suppose that might explain some of these groups who are identified as tri racial isloates , ( the Lumbee)...

It is a really complex issue. But you seem to be making a sincere effort to try and get it figured out....
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 12, 2009, 02:03:49 am
"It is a really complex issue. But you seem to be making a sincere effort to try and get it figured out.... "


"Were the Echota Cherokee were recorded as a tribe 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 40 years ago , 80 , 100 , 120, 150 years ago?

Edid: I did find that the State of Ala. requires proof for the past 200 years. they must have it of the state wouldn't recognize them.

Can the people claiming to be Echota Cherokee prove they descend from the people who were repeatedly recorded as a part of this alleged Cherokee community?"


They say that they can with the exception of some years when the State of Alabama outlawed being NDN. That is why they can't get fed status. They have records showing 40 (I think)  families moving into an area and just blending in (passing) till the laws were changed. And others of course just married whites.

But, never mind... back to the "I give up thingy..."
It's not worth it I am defending and answering questions about a group who's only source of info is from their web site.

I came here to find answers, not give them. I had hoped you guys had heard of them.

Edit to add link : http://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/iaff/3iaff.htm
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: taraverti on September 12, 2009, 02:41:29 am
Paul,

Now I understand better. You have family connections to CNO and the Echota Cherokee. That explains so much, at least to me. Thanks for that.

I would echo MP in saying it is a complex issue. And I am on my way out the door to work but wanted you to know I appreciate your continued efforts to make sense of all of this. Bottom line for me is what choices/actions on my part support soveriegnty for the Indian Nations. For me it's being not-Indian, even though I do have ancestry. the good of the many... etc etc.

Other people make other choices. It all works out in the end.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: wolfhawaii on September 12, 2009, 06:49:50 am
I see I have missed a lot of discussion :o It was a long day at work, 12 1/4 hours. It seems Paul took umbrage at my comment; I will confess that i am unfamiliar with the Cherokees of Central Florida....if they are a recognized heritage group or satellite community of enrolled members then that is fine. There are so many fake groups and "tribes" that I can't keep up with them all anymore. I got my information on the Echotas of AL from their website; looked at the photos, read their histories (where did they get the idea that Redbird Smith was Chief of the Cherokee Nation?) The idea of using clans as regional groups is past wrong, and would only be done (in my opinion) if they were unaware of their own clan. I support the efforts of people to reconnect with their ancestral nations but there are many pitfalls along the way. I encourage you to keep seeking, Paul, but the tone of your postings has me concerned that you may veer off into unproductive paths and you are not hearing the calls of concern. I will not judge you as you have me; I have travelled some of the roads you seek.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: LittleOldMan on September 12, 2009, 11:22:49 am
Good morning.  I started to respond to this on going subject last night but I wanted to sleep on my response to the group.  So with the utmost respect may I offer up a comment or three?  First, this is one of the finest sites that I have ever encountered on the web.  It is moderated well and responses are usually held to the discussion of the subject in question rather than some boards that quickly descend to the level of personal attack and worse.  As I commented before I will write personal knowledge which must be considered from a legal standpoint as only hearsay or op/ed.  Where I can I will document with legally verifiable data.  Within this discussion I see two different subjects being looked at one, the Echota and two the, concept of state tribes.  The Echota some years ago became embroiled in a dispute involving tribal politics, money, power and maybe other subjects that I may not be aware of.  It digressed to the point of a court battle. I have not researched the outcome of this court fight but it should be public record for those interested.  I have a friend who will be knowledgeable but he is unavailable to talk with for a couple of weeks he is an AIM rep and understandably so, very careful about what he will say both on line as well s on the phone.  Perhaps I will be able to offer up some information about the Echota then.  My observations concerning the concept of state tribes, for over twenty years, are as follows.  There are many out there that I consider to be both counterfeit and dangerous.  Counterfeit due to some pie in the sky concept of just what it is to be Native American from a cultural standpoint.  Too much of a romantic concept based on films etc.  Dangerous because for some of the ignorant, monetary loss and criminal abuse can occur.  I hasten to admit though that I have never encountered the criminal aspect from the state tribes as I believe them to be better regulated.  The criminal element comes mostly from personality cults that prey on the others for money and sex.  I well understand the stand that the CNO has taken.  There is just so much money, Federal and State, to go around and under some circumstances State Tribes can access some of these funds.  Understandably this is the main reason for their stance.  There is another theme that some express pertaining to culture that through ignorance the culture could be adulterated in some way.  Both have merit.  Here, in my opinion, the CNO has dropped the ball.  I would argue that it would be to their advantage to in some way take under their wing some of these State Tribes (heritage groups).  I would argue that in doing so they would be in control and be able to police their culture better.  This concept would also have the effect of them being able to out and out fight the frauds would it not?  As it stands the State Tribes fill a void that the CNO was either unwilling or unable to satisfy.  Thank you for your time.  With respect I am “LittleOldMan
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 12, 2009, 12:06:50 pm
I see I have missed a lot of discussion :o It was a long day at work, 12 1/4 hours. It seems Paul took umbrage at my comment; I will confess that i am unfamiliar with the Cherokees of Central Florida....if they are a recognized heritage group or satellite community of enrolled members then that is fine. There are so many fake groups and "tribes" that I can't keep up with them all anymore. I got my information on the Echotas of AL from their website; looked at the photos, read their histories (where did they get the idea that Redbird Smith was Chief of the Cherokee Nation?) The idea of using clans as regional groups is past wrong, and would only be done (in my opinion) if they were unaware of their own clan. I support the efforts of people to reconnect with their ancestral nations but there are many pitfalls along the way. I encourage you to keep seeking, Paul, but the tone of your postings has me concerned that you may veer off into unproductive paths and you are not hearing the calls of concern. I will not judge you as you have me; I have travelled some of the roads you seek.

Well yes I took "umbrage", mostly to the "Maybe they'll make you Chief" part but,
I see that you are an honorable man. I will take you confession of unfamiliarity and offer my apology.  I should not have taken so much offense to your statement.

As for Red Bird Smith ---- I dunno
As for the clans--- you are probability right about why they do it that way. I'd guess that as their membership grew and there were enough members in an area that they would have rather met up with each other in their own area instead of traveling across the state and their clan system formed from that. After all the original Clan systems were based on close family lines and marriage rules. I don't think that the Tribe is worried about who is marring who these days.


And again sir,,, I apologize. 

 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 12, 2009, 12:15:18 pm
...  Here, in my opinion, the CNO has dropped the ball.  I would argue that it would be to their advantage to in some way take under their wing some of these State Tribes (heritage groups).  I would argue that in doing so they would be in control and be able to police their culture better.  This concept would also have the effect of them being able to out and out fight the frauds would it not?  As it stands the State Tribes fill a void that the CNO was either unwilling or unable to satisfy.  Thank you for your time.  With respect I am “LittleOldMan

LOM,
Thanks I await you input, and your statement above said it well.
My take is that the CNO thinks everyone wants money from them. Not true,,, there are a lot of people out there that would only want membership. 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: wolfhawaii on September 12, 2009, 08:13:17 pm
My interpretation of the official CNO stance is that they take no position on verifying  individual claims to Cherokee ancestry; they have no issue with groups of descendents coming together for the purposes of retaining or relearning cultural traits; but will aggressively defend the political and financial prerogatives of the 3 federally recognized Cherokee governments (CNO, UKB, EBCI) and will not tolerate infringement of their sovereignty. (I am not a spokesman for anybody; this is just my understanding, but i will be eating fried hog in OK next week, yum yum. :))
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: taraverti on September 12, 2009, 10:04:56 pm
...  Here, in my opinion, the CNO has dropped the ball.  I would argue that it would be to their advantage to in some way take under their wing some of these State Tribes (heritage groups).  I would argue that in doing so they would be in control and be able to police their culture better.  This concept would also have the effect of them being able to out and out fight the frauds would it not?  As it stands the State Tribes fill a void that the CNO was either unwilling or unable to satisfy.  Thank you for your time.  With respect I am “LittleOldMan

LOM,
Thanks I await you input, and your statement above said it well.
My take is that the CNO thinks everyone wants money from them. Not true,,, there are a lot of people out there that would only want membership. 

I think the CNO has started to address this with the sattelite communities, which is a good thing. Hopefully this is the beginning of some rapproachmont.


Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on September 13, 2009, 02:08:08 am
My interpretation of the official CNO stance is that they take no position on verifying  individual claims to Cherokee ancestry; they have no issue with groups of descendents coming together for the purposes of retaining or relearning cultural traits; but will aggressively defend the political and financial prerogatives of the 3 federally recognized Cherokee governments (CNO, UKB, EBCI) and will not tolerate infringement of their sovereignty. (I am not a spokesman for anybody; this is just my understanding, but i will be eating fried hog in OK next week, yum yum. :))

 That is my take on the situation as well.

  The CNO for one, does recognize the fact that their are people of Cherokee descent that can't be enrolled for whatever reason. I do believe on their official website they even mention that, or maybe I read that on their task force thing. However regardless if they do acknowledge the fact of unenrolled people that can not be, they still as you said do not tolerate infringement on the CNO, UKB or EBCI.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: LittleOldMan on September 13, 2009, 11:02:59 am
I really have no problem with their stance on sovereignty.  I am well enough off that I do not covet any privileges that they have as a Fed Tribe.  I also will not be an enrolled member of a State Tribe, my choice.  I think that I would enjoy a cultural center here in Al sponsored by one of the three Tribes.  As it is now all we have is the internet or books.  Distance to OK or NC is prohibitive both in time and money.  If there was an outlet for the dissemination of cultural knowledge somewhat more local that taught true culture most of the State Tribes might then become more heritage organizations and some but not all the problem would cease.  As it stands now there is just too much cultural misinformation out there. I see it at every gathering and powwow.  Then perhaps what you had left would be only the egotistical and the frauds.  Thanks for your time.  "LOM"
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 13, 2009, 12:57:58 pm
My last rant,,,
The CNO base their enrollment on the Dawes rolls. So someone that has family on these rolls get their card regardless of BQ. even if it is only 1/256 (all well and good). Then someone like me and hundreds of thousands of others (perhaps even many of you here on this forum) look up their family tree and find themselves for whatever reason in the "outaluck" category. Chad Smith said not to long ago that there are 250,000 Cherokee on the rolls (not sure if this includes the other 2 Tribes) and that there were 500,000 more people that claim to be Cherokee. So there are twice as many outaluckers than enrolled. Anyway an outalucker looks at their tree and sees that they have a much higher BQ than some others, but, but, but, damn...Oh well it's not about BQ anyway.

 Then you hear the excuses why not...

If your ancestors chose to leave the nation and live in another country,,, well all of their descendants will have to live with that,,, Well that all sounds good if you're one of the enrolled but to an outalucker, it's just BS. That would be like saying that all of those Jewish people and their descendants that were rounded up and sent to Hitler's death camps are Jewish and all the rest of you are not. If your family managed to escape the roundup that's great but by doing so they gave up their descendants rights.

OK, so to make that more palatable we have the thingy about "Well you have to realize that we know that you may be of Cherokee descent but, you have to understand that there is a difference between being of descent and having Citizenship".  OK, yea, yea,,, I got it... Screw you too. We'll just go somewhere else and band together without you... after all there are twice as many of us as there are of you.  Then we hear... Oh hell no,, you can't do that either. Well it might be OK if you don't call yourselves a Tribe, band, clan or even Cherokee for that matter, we have a patent on those terms,  and oh, by the way, don't dress like us or dance like us or speak like us and for God's sake don't teach anything to anyone because we know that you have gotten it all wrong... And NO we won't teach you how to do it right! You should be in Jail!

  And to make all of this way worse, there are those who prey upon these groups to get rich, power, sex, did I mention money? (oh yea I did,,,)  and on and on...

I am a thinking person. I over analyze everything. When I start to look at something I see both sides and try to understand them both without bias. Until I start to see things on one side that just don't add up, or seem just flat out wrong. Then I start to take sides. It's human nature to root for an underdog. I have looked at this issue and decided that Dr. Seuss said it best with his book about the Sneetches on the Beach.
 
Here's the story outline.

Sneetches are a group of vaguely avian yellow creatures who live on a beach. Some Sneetches have a green star on their bellies, and in the beginning of the story the absence of a star is the basis for discrimination. Sneetches who have stars on their bellies are part of the "in crowd", while Sneetches without stars are shunned and consequently mopey.
In the story, a "fix-it-up chappie" named Sylvester McMonkey McBean appears, driving a cart of strange machines. He offers the Sneetches without stars a chance to have them by going through his Star-On machine, for three dollars. The treatment is instantly popular, but this upsets the original star-bellied Sneetches, as they are in danger of losing their method for discriminating between Sneetches. Then McBean tells them about his Star-Off machine, costing ten dollars. The Sneetches formerly with stars happily pay the money to have them removed in order to remain special.
However, McBean does not share the prejudices of the Sneetches, and allows the recently starred Sneetches through this machine as well. Ultimately this escalates, with the Sneetches running from one machine to the next,
"until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
whether this one was that one or that one was this one
or which one was what one... or what one was who."
This continues until the Sneetches are penniless and McBean departs a rich man, amused by their folly. Despite his assertion that "you can't teach a Sneetch," the Sneetches learn from this experience that neither plain-belly nor star-belly Sneetches are superior, and they are able to get along and become friends.


So now after 40 or 50 years of people with and without stars on thares still running to and fro. And the McBeans (plastic Shamans)  of the world are still getting rich. There are some people that are beginning to see just how foolish all of this is. But with so much water under the bridge and so many bad feelings, I doubt that this issue will come to the happy ending that Dr. Seuss' story did for another 50 years. If ever.

As for me,,, "Screw it"  " I give up",,, I'm getting off of this merry go round. I haven't completed my research to be sure that I am in fact an "Outalucker" but at this point even if I find proof that would allow me Citizenship in the CNO, I don't want to align with a group like that.? And at the same time I don't want to get wrapped up in all of the hassles that go with having to defend one's self for being a member of a State Tribe.  So the only answer (for me)  is,,, SCREW IT,,, And no one will give a rat's ass that I choose to get off of this merry go round. It wasn't meant to be…

 Oh yea,,, I did go to the CNO's satellite group's meeting yesterday.  That was the icing on the cake. I drove 75 miles one way to get there. Only to discover that I was an hour early (well that's better than an hour late). An hour and forty five minutes later a group of 3 or 4 drove up and walked past me carrying some food stuff. (there was suppose to be a pot luck dinner) So I ask them--- "Cherokee Nation" ? Their answer--- " no englase"  (Spanish???) OK,,, I waited another 15 minutes ( now it's been 2 hours) and no one else showed up. So I went back home. Saying SCREW IT, all the way home. The gas I wasted would have gotten me back and forth from work a whole week. It wasn't meant to be… In a month (or less) yous guys will have forgotten all about me.



Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Moma_porcupine on September 13, 2009, 03:39:45 pm
Hi Paul

I don't want to disagree with your frustration because it sounds like you have a right to it. But some of what you said in your last post made me want to respond.

I agree the CNO guidelines for enrollment seem kind of arbitrary. It seems like the Dawes roles were originally based on a list of people who were community members in a particualr place and time. On first glance it does seem unfair that a person can be enrolled on the basis of an ancestor being on the Dawes roll, but if someone can prove their own ancestor was this persons sibling, the person not on the Dawes roll is outaluck.

The problem is, as soon as there is a need to define membership eligibility, and create a non flexible cut off point , there is going to be people who feel they are unfairly on the wrong side of the line.

If the cut off point is flexible, then there would be a problem with arbitrary choices being made based on personal likes and dislikes...

People who are close to full blood can be outaluck just because they don't have enough BQ from any one tribe to meet any tribe enrollment standards. Someone who grew up in a Native community with a parent in a Native community who finds they are ineligible to enroll anywhere would also feel this was unfair. As another example, I think the Hopi only enroll if the matrilineal line is Hopi and people with a Hopi father and non Hopi mother are also outaluck.

No matter where you draw the line, this will seem unfair in some situations.

Now as for the CNO's cut off point...  I suspect one of the reasons there is so many bogus Cherokee tribes is not so much because the cut off point seems arbitrary, ( many tribes have this ) But it is that the CNO allows people with a very low BQ to enroll, which  inspires a lot of PODIAs to point at the CNO and say "Hey if they are Cherokee and have 1/ 250 BQ, then so am I."   

Paul   
Quote
If your ancestors chose to leave the nation and live in another country,,, well all of their descendants will have to live with that,,, Well that all sounds good if you're one of the enrolled but to an outalucker, it's just BS. That would be like saying that all of those Jewish people and their descendants that were rounded up and sent to Hitler's death camps are Jewish and all the rest of you are not. If your family managed to escape the roundup that's great but by doing so they gave up their descendants rights.

Another way to look at this is that lots of people were forcibly removed from their original Nations and have over time assimilated into American society . For instance , there was the Africans brought here as slaves , and the Scots and Irish who's stories in many ways are not that different than what happened to the Cherokee.

These people are all descendants and no one denies this part of their heritage may be an important part of who they are. However even though their ancestors may have been African , irish or Scotish and in many cases were wrongly forced from their homelands against their will, after a couple generations these people are not eligible for citizenship or benifits in their ancestors Nations.  If these descendents get together and begin declaring themselves soviergn Nations of Africa / Ireland/ Scotland, the soveirnty of these countries is taken seriously enough people would usually see these folks as a bunch of flakes.

So it seems even stranger when people of predomninantly English / Irish / Scots or African heritage try and declare them self a Nation - and they don't even use the National identity of the largest majority of their own ancestors, but instead try and claim the national identity of a group their own ancestors helped wipe out....

It seems the basis of this choice is often the same racial biases that allowed their non native ancestors to push the cherokee people from their homelands in the first place. 

All too often Native people are seen as toys or not real and not having real rights to their land, homes , identity or National soverighnty .

I think that is the problem.

As for culture ... I think some parts of culture can be learned with your head but most of culture is about love and deeply interconnected relationships with real people, real values, real history and the real land where people live. Expecting the 250,000 enrolled Cherokee people to have the energy to build relationships with the 500,000 claiments is a lot to expect . Espcially as many of this 500,000 who would come forward would be approaching Cherokee culture with a lot of non Cherokee assumptions and world views.

Being realistic, and practically speaking, could this even work?

If you think it could , how would you envision this ?

As I said i don't mean to criticize you for your frustration, as you seem sincere and how you feel is undertstandable, but I think there is a lot some reasons behind what you are experiencing that deserve more respect and consideration than the silly and vain star belly sneaches..     

   
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on September 13, 2009, 06:23:18 pm
I enrolled in the Echota Cherokee Tribe because when I did some genealogical research I discovered a long lost cousin who was an enrolled member. I also have ancestors on both the Guinion and Dawes Rolls, however I had no contact with that branch of the family in my life. I've never even been to Alabama except during the civil rights movement (Selma). When I spoke to other members I realised that I had nothing in common with them, as far as politics, religion or world view. I've never been at all involved in tribal affairs and never intend to be. I am a Canadian citizen and have been for over 40 years, this is my home, my nation and my people.
I agree with Paul about enrolling in the federal Cherokee tribes, frankly, as a mixed blood and having not grown up in Indian communities I do not consider myself to be an Indian. Having Indian blood does NOT make you Indian. I speak French, but to my wife's family, that doesn't make me French Canadian. It makes me sick to see people who learn a few words of Tsalagi and use them constantly, or people who claim to be Cherokee and use Chacta words.
Because of my commitment to human rights and social justice, I've become involved in exposing Indian frauds and exploiters and have been in this group from a few years. Thats why I've been so active in exposing black Indian cults and phonies, because I truly believe that they are seeking to get benefits they do not deserve. Some like Tecumseh Brown Eagle are simply trying to rip off Indian people. Others like Jerry Monroe and the Binay are simply business ventures selling memberships to black people who want to be anything but black. BTW anyone who wants to confront the Nuwaubians should join luv4self_network@yahoogroups.com.
In closing, I would like to say that I believe that the whole system is wrong. Its a relic of paternalism and forces isolation and bigotry. I believe that in both Canada and the states its time to re-examine all relationships between tribes and government. I would argue that far too many people want to be Indian because they want something from government, either money, casinos, healthcare, scholarships etc. I have argued that if black folks ever got reparations for slavery, half of white Americans would find some slave in their family tree.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on September 13, 2009, 07:26:46 pm
I have argued that if black folks ever got reparations for slavery, half of white Americans would find some slave in their family tree.

Excellent comparison. And it would be the ancestor they currently deny was Black. Or the branch of the family they pretend didn't exist.

And how would Black people feel if suddenly people with white skin privilege, people who have grown up with all the benefits of being 99% Euro-American, were suddenly demanding to be "recognized" as Black. Even better, you know some of the white people would set themselves up as the "real" Black people, and find a way to say they were more Black than the Black people.

"I'm Black IN MY HEART!!!"  ;)
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on September 14, 2009, 09:12:10 pm
Black wannabees usually are people who have family stories of mythical Indian ancestors. None has any documentation. This one black super wannabee who haunts yahoogroups, has claimed to be Chacta, Cherokee, Olmec, Yamasee and more. Some like the Erie Moundbuilders Tribe base their claims on the myths of Africans in prehistoric America, Tecumseh Brown Eagle their "chief: may even get a casino. There is a thread about TBE and a white wannabee who stole a Shawnes family's genealogy! Dualing wannabees!
As long as race/ethnicity has a dollar value attached there will be phonies trying to get something for nothing. Black people believe that Indians got "reparations" because most have no understanding of history and don't know what treaties are. Some who claim Indian blood hate Indians, because they are black supremacists like the Washitaw/Nuwaubian/Moundbuilders.
As I said if reparations for slavery were ever granted, which will never happen, white folks would be claiming their ancestors slaves were really their cousins...
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: wolfhawaii on September 22, 2009, 05:11:11 am
(quote by Moma Porcupine) Expecting the 250,000 enrolled Cherokee people to have the energy to build relationships with the 500,000 claiments is a lot to expect . Espcially as many of this 500,000 who would come forward would be approaching Cherokee culture with a lot of non Cherokee assumptions and world views.(end quote)
 
I agree with this statement; I think it is a large part of the problem. I just got back from Oklahoma, visiting the ceremonial grounds I belong to. The wife of the 2nd chief told me about a couple of women who showed up there sometime back wearing buckskin dresses and dancing around the fire with a hawk wing they pulled off a roadkilled hawk, bloody meat and all. The more masculine of the two tried to make a speech at the fire,  much to the consternation of officials. I know of a number of cases of people who successfully integrated into communities, but there are far more who get themselves run off. Maybe that's why they make their own "tribes"; they can make it all up and not have to be accountable to an actual community. As far as federally  unrecognized "Cherokee" organizations go, I have not yet seen one that has all the elements of real culture. :'(

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 22, 2009, 09:33:48 am
Thanks guys,
Here's what I have concluded (so far) from my seeking.

I may be wrong, in part or completely. We can discuss it. (I may of course rant some when I get frustrated)  but.........

The blood quantum thing doesn't matter. Either you are or your not,,, the percentage only mattered (back then) to the Gov. so they could decide how much land to give you. and of course now it seems to matter to the whites,,, Well non-NDN's,,, because I did see a black guy ask in disbelief one of my Cherokee co-workers last month to see his card. My friend showed it to him. I would have ask to see his card to prove that he was black. I'm about 3/4 honky, the rest is Cherokee. I have family in the CNO and the Echota Tribe. Sure there are some things that I don't like on both sides but I still don't know if there is anything wrong with either Tribe that would or should preclude enrollment.  I have only in the past year began to investigate my NDN heritage. And even less time investigating the Echotas . I was raised white, so until an NDN community (either one) accepts me, I will always be white, no matter what a card says. (like the blacks accept Obama. he's 1/2 and 1/2 but one side accepts him) The whites accept me, I hope one day to be accepted by both sides. But for now it would only be a paper ("the card") thingy. It's not that they (NDN's) don't accept me now, it's that they don't even know who I am. There is an CNO Cherokee group in my area, their meetings are a long drive and only one time per month. So if it takes years for them to get to know and or accept me,,, only time will tell.  In the meanwhile perhaps the internet community will accept me on a social level. If this was meant to be,,  it will be.

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: LittleOldMan on September 27, 2009, 02:31:46 am
Update:  The man that I was supposed to talk with about the Echota was not present at the gathering for what ever reason.  I was, able to develop some more information about the split that occurred a few years ago.  The person that I spoke with today related some facts to me.  I have added some other facts to what he told me.  Here as I have indicated in a previous post because I can't document what happened in a legal sense it therefore must be put under a heading labeled here-say. Three or four years ago the Chief of the Echota resigned.  If I remember correctly there was some question of some irregularity which occurred.  I may be remembering wrong on this however. After some time the tribe held another election.  The prior Chief ran as did another.  The election was contested, arguments ensued  evolving into a Cort battle on who was going to be the new Chief and be in control of the Tribes assets.  The judge stepped back so my Friend related to me with a statement along these lines. " You have your own government you fix it your selves"  So I will continue this line of research when I discover more I will up this thread.  "LittleOldMan"
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 28, 2009, 12:41:38 pm
No such thing as an Echota Cherokee Tribal Goverment in Alabama.  Without a Tribal goverment, you can't have a Cherokee Chief.  They are just a bunch of people who may or may not have Cherkoee ancestry.



Here are the real Cherokee Tribes.
Cherokee Nation ( Tahlequah, Oklahoma )
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians ( Tahlequah, Oklahoma )
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians ( Cherokee, North Carolina )
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on September 28, 2009, 03:50:50 pm
The Echota members can have blood from all tribes who live or lived in Alabama. Some members are Muskove, Seminole while most do have Cherokee blood. I believe that the required blood quantum is still 25%. Documentation is required when you enroll.
I have not been in contact with the tribe in over 5 years, I live in Canada. Its interesting to see the comments about the Echota here. Many members have ancestors on the Baker, Dawes and Gunion Rolls, but chose the Echota. I and I'm sure other Echota, don't have ties to the 3 federal tribes, although they have Cherokee blood. My grandmother is the reason I enrolled after she died. I believe that having Indian blood doesn't make you an Indian, in fact some members of the CNO have 1/264 blood quantum. I have rabid racists who sound like Klansmen, who are enrolled, they are really white racists. My father is black and I have no love for white racists. The last time I was in Alabama was 1965 when I worked for SCLC in Selma and Lownes Country.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 28, 2009, 05:39:47 pm
Quote
The Echota members can have blood from all tribes who live or lived in Alabama. Some members are Muskove, Seminole while most do have Cherokee blood.

Then why are they claiming to be a Cherokee Tribe?

Quote
I believe that the required blood quantum is still 25%.

I doubt it.

Quote
Documentation is required when you enroll.

I was told by someone enrolled with them that family members and/or people that know the potential enrolle can sign a notarized document stating that they know the person to be Cherokee.  So what other documentation are you refering to? What percentage of the enrolled Echotas are documented from Cherokee rolls? 

Quote
Many members have ancestors on the Baker, Dawes and Gunion Rolls, but chose the Echota.

I seriously doubt this statement.  Maybe a handful of people that were mislead into beleiving that the Echotas are a real Tribe.  Can you back this statement up? 


Quote
I believe that having Indian blood doesn't make you an Indian, in fact some members of the CNO have 1/264 blood quantum.


Having NDN blood DOES make you an NDN. Its the conerstone of enrollment of every Federally Recognized Indian Tribe in the country.  It seems to be in fashion these days for Wannabees to critisize the Cherokee Nation and Cherokee citizens with low BQ's.  For me this seems bizare considering the fact that people who claim Cherokee heritage and can't prove it, are really claiming to be the low BQ Cherokees that they are critisizing.  The people in these bogus tribes that actually do have Cherokee ansestry most likely have only a little Cherokee blood.  There may be isolated cases where someone actually does have a full blood Cherokee grandma/Grandpa who can't enroll, but its highly unlikely for someone with a 1/4 Cherokee blood quantum to be unable to enroll in one of the 3 federally recognized Cherokee tribes. 

You seem to confuse and blur the idea of Political Citizenship and being racially and culturally Cherokee. 

 
Quote
I have rabid racists who sound like Klansmen, who are enrolled, they are really white racists

Classical Cherry Picking Fallacy: "act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position"

Quote
My father is black and I have no love for white racists.

Me neither and I'm sure most enrolled Cheokees would agree with that.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on September 28, 2009, 08:14:41 pm
Regarding blood quantum that was the the policy 8 years ago. I haven't had any contact with them since 2002. I don't live in the US, and because I didn't grow up in an Indian community of home, I hardly consider myself to be Cherokee.
Do you believe that Mike Graham is a racist, just about everyone in Indianz.com does, in fact they were going to ban him for his inflammatory use of the "N word" with regard to the president. I was in Oklahoma in the '60 when I was in college. The CNO was totally segregated, black freedmen and mixed bloods even lived in separate towns, went to segregated schools and couldn't eat in the local lunch counters. In fact SNCC had sit ins
on the reservation. from what I saw of the CNO members they were the whitest Indians I ever enocuntered. They have virtually no blood quantum
"Having NDN blood DOES make you an NDN. Its the conerstone of enrollment of every Federally Recognized Indian Tribe in the country.  It seems to be in fashion these days for Wannabees to critisize the Cherokee Nation and Cherokee citizens with low BQ's.  For me this seems bizare considering the fact that people who claim Cherokee heritage and can't prove it, are really claiming to be the low BQ Cherokees that they are critisizing.  The people in these bogus tribes that actually do have Cherokee ansestry most likely have only a little Cherokee blood.  There may be isolated cases where someone actually does have a full blood Cherokee grandma/Grandpa who can't enroll, but its highly unlikely for someone with a 1/4 Cherokee blood quantum to be unable to enroll in one of the 3 federally recognized Cherokee tribes. 
You seem to confuse and blur the idea of Political Citizenship and being racially and culturally Cherokee."


As to documenation birth certificates, baptism etc I must have misunderstood this. Are sugessting that people with 1/264 are racially Indian. I think not.  They are racially white because of the miniscule amount of Indian blood. They may culturally identify witth Indians,  they are white and as I've indicated what I saw was pure unadulterated white racism   

To me its all academic,I'm not an American citizen, and havent been since 1968.

As I said I joined the tribe in 2001 when a long lost cousin approached me. She was Echota and I enrolled because of her influence. I have never gotten any tribal benefits, and because I do not believe in special status or affirmative action, or priviledge base soley on race or ethnicity. I sent admission and scholarship information from the university where I was teaching. I also stopped receiving Smoke Signals, the tribal newsletter when I moved home, so I don't know about the power struggles within the tribe.




Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on September 28, 2009, 08:28:37 pm
One more point why do you believe that PODIA (1/264) should be eligible while 1/2 bloods who don't have a name on the list denied. I have met many Cherokee at pow wows etc, and I have yet to me any who even appear to be Indian. There is nothing mystical about having 1/264 Indian blood any more than having 1/264 black blood.
If reparations ar ever granted, and people have prove their blood quantum say of 50%, only a small number would qualify.I think that most people who are obsessed with "becoming Indian" are more interested in making or getting money than in actually being an Indian. I would say that if the Indian Gaming Act was not passed that very few people would be interested enrolling.So called Black Indians almost always believe that they deserve the benefits Indians receive. I did once get an invitation to a bass tournament on the Echota land, maybe that was a benefit.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: LittleOldMan on September 28, 2009, 09:22:34 pm
This is what the Al. law states about this matter of qualifications for State Tribes   "LittleOldMan"                          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. "LittleOldMan"
Online
This is the State Law Echota must comply with this.  As to BQ @ 25%  this does not sound correct on it's face.  Check their web site.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 28, 2009, 10:38:19 pm
No such thing as an Echota Cherokee Tribal Goverment in Alabama.  Without a Tribal goverment, you can't have a Cherokee Chief.  They are just a bunch of people who may or may not have Cherkoee ancestry.



Here are the real Cherokee Tribes.
Cherokee Nation ( Tahlequah, Oklahoma )
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians ( Tahlequah, Oklahoma )
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians ( Cherokee, North Carolina )



Please then give me your definition of Tribal Government??????
 




Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 29, 2009, 02:46:28 am
Quote
The CNO was totally segregated, black freedmen and mixed bloods even lived in separate towns, went to segregated schools and couldn't eat in the local lunch counters. In fact SNCC had sit ins

I'm well aware of the racisim that went on all over the United States.  The Cherokee Nation was no exception. Yeah there were Cherokees both lightskin and full bloods who were racist against blacks.

Quote
from what I saw of the CNO members they were the whitest Indians I ever enocuntered. They have virtually no blood quantum

Some Cherokees are pretty white.  And you know what.  Some are even blond haired and blue eyed.  I"ve explained this before on different threads.  Since your obviously an outsider of the Tribe and not a citizen of the Cherokee Nation your opinion about our Tribe's enrollment procedures of our soverign Goverment mean absoutly zero to me and most Cherokees.  In other words, this is only the business of enrolled citizens of the Cherokee Nation.  The same goes for the US Goverment and the Freedmen issue.  Only the business of Cherokee Citizens.

Quote
Are sugessting that people with 1/264 are racially Indian. I think not.


Agreed.  Reread my post from before. 

Quote
You seem to confuse and blur the idea of Political Citizenship and being racially and culturally Cherokee."

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 29, 2009, 02:54:22 am
Quote
One more point why do you believe that PODIA (1/264) should be eligible while 1/2 bloods who don't have a name on the list denied.


Because they are Cherokee by blood with documented Cherokee families.  Not just someone who was told they were Cherokee by Grandma.  Reread what I said above

Quote
There may be isolated cases where someone actually does have a full blood Cherokee grandma/Grandpa who can't enroll, but its highly unlikely for someone with a 1/4 Cherokee blood quantum to be unable to enroll in one of the 3 federally recognized Cherokee tribes.

Quote
I have met many Cherokee at pow wows etc, and I have yet to me any who even appear to be Indian.

Cherokees don't Powwow.  Who you probably met were New Agers and Wannabees playing dress up.

Quote
They are racially white because of the miniscule amount of Indian blood.

Yeah, they are mostly racially white, but are Cherokee by blood.  Reread what I wrote above.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 29, 2009, 02:57:37 am
Quote
I would say that if the Indian Gaming Act was not passed that very few people would be interested enrolling

There are a few ATM NDNS who do enroll with the Cherokee Nation.  They are the exception though rather then the rule.

Quote
I did once get an invitation to a bass tournament on the Echota land, maybe that was a benefit.

Hahahhaahah.  Ok
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 29, 2009, 03:11:08 am
Here you go Paul.

True tribes are characterized by having a continuous historic existence as a legal government. Virtually all have treaties with the United States and many with European countries. Accurate rolls, or census, were taken of the members and current members must document their ancestry to a particular roll. Ineligible persons cannot be adopted officially for full citizenship. They can point to a reservation or land base retained or set aside for them that they still generally inhabit.  True Tribal Goverments are Soverign Goverments.

LIke I said before.  The Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama is not a Cherokee Tribe
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 29, 2009, 09:41:22 am
Here you go Paul.

True tribes are characterized by having a continuous historic existence as a legal government. Virtually all have treaties with the United States and many with European countries. Accurate rolls, or census, were taken of the members and current members must document their ancestry to a particular roll. Ineligible persons cannot be adopted officially for full citizenship. They can point to a reservation or land base retained or set aside for them that they still generally inhabit.  True Tribal Goverments are Soverign Goverments.

LIke I said before.  The Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama is not a Cherokee Tribe


Accurate rolls my ace.
You know you guys in OK keep this up and it could very well blow up in you faces. The Gov already wants to cut all your funding.

I was talking to a Creek friend last week. After questing her a bit about where her Tribe was located at she told me Georgia. Ah, ha,,, (another one of those State Tribes)I thought. So we talked a bit about what the Creeks in Ok. thought about her State tribe. She said that they weren't Cherokee. There two tribes have a good relationship. And then she had a few words about the damage all of that Task Farce crap was doing to all Tribes that I can't post here. But to sum it up she thinks that it will only result in the Gov. cutting all funding to ALL tribes.

Money is tight, go ahead and give some congressman a good excuse and you guys will wind up being Fake NDN's too. Then what you gonna do?   

I keep hearing about being confused about the difference between Citizenship and ancestry. I have concluded that it is you guys that have confused the difference between a Nation and a Tribe. . For proof I will point out the requirements (posted above by LOM) to be an Tribe in Alabama. If the Echota's have met ALL of those requirements, then the ONLY difference between them and the CNO (other than the money) is which roll is allowed. But I guess that's the difference between a Nation and a Tribe.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: bls926 on September 29, 2009, 12:31:42 pm
Here you go Paul.

True tribes are characterized by having a continuous historic existence as a legal government. Virtually all have treaties with the United States and many with European countries. Accurate rolls, or census, were taken of the members and current members must document their ancestry to a particular roll. Ineligible persons cannot be adopted officially for full citizenship. They can point to a reservation or land base retained or set aside for them that they still generally inhabit.  True Tribal Goverments are Soverign Goverments.

LIke I said before.  The Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama is not a Cherokee Tribe


Accurate rolls my ace.
You know you guys in OK keep this up and it could very well blow up in you faces. The Gov already wants to cut all your funding.

I was talking to a Creek friend last week. After questing her a bit about where her Tribe was located at she told me Georgia. Ah, ha,,, (another one of those State Tribes)I thought. So we talked a bit about what the Creeks in Ok. thought about her State tribe. She said that they weren't Cherokee. There two tribes have a good relationship. And then she had a few words about the damage all of that Task Farce crap was doing to all Tribes that I can't post here. But to sum it up she thinks that it will only result in the Gov. cutting all funding to ALL tribes.

Money is tight, go ahead and give some congressman a good excuse and you guys will wind up being Fake NDN's too. Then what you gonna do?   

I keep hearing about being confused about the difference between Citizenship and ancestry. I have concluded that it is you guys that have confused the difference between a Nation and a Tribe. . For proof I will point out the requirements (posted above by LOM) to be an Tribe in Alabama. If the Echota's have met ALL of those requirements, then the ONLY difference between them and the CNO (other than the money) is which roll is allowed. But I guess that's the difference between a Nation and a Tribe.



It's not the Task Force that is causing the damage. It's these groups of descendants who think they have the right to call themselves a Tribe or Nation. It's the PODIA's who think they should have the same rights as an historically recognized Nation. It's the adult-onset Indian, the over-nighter, who thinks they should have sovereign rights. It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant, how presumptuous these people are. Wake up one morning and decide to honor your one long ago Cherokee ancestor and think you have inherent rights. This isn't honoring anyone. This is being self-centered and selfish. You're right, resources are limited. These groups are trying to take these benefits away from those who rightfully deserve them.

Don't know what group in Georgia your friend claims to be enrolled with, but there are only two recognized Creek Nations. The Creek Nation (Oklahoma) and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (Alabama). They recognize each other as sovereign Nations and no other Creek tribes or bands. (Lower case t and b intentional.) Refer to the thread on the Blackwater Band of Muskogee in Frauds.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on September 29, 2009, 06:18:23 pm
I would agree with you about some points you make. However, I have yet to see any benefits to members of any state tribes. Certainly no benefits that people like me who are not American or even Americans who do not live in the state. The only benefits I am eligible for from the US is my Pennsylvania teachers pension when I turn 65.
I also have no doubt that these so called "black Indian tribes" are only interested in getting money and making money. Tecumseh Brown Eagle and his"moundbuilders" are trying to get a casino in Ohio, and the other pretender Walter Renz is trying to do the same thing with his pseudo Shawnee tribe.
I believe that the real problem are those tribes who are trying to rip off the government and have no legitimacy. I haven't seen anything fraudulent, misleading, selling ceremonies or names, selling medicines or sweats etc.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on September 29, 2009, 06:23:14 pm
It's not the Task Force that is causing the damage. It's these groups of descendants who think they have the right to call themselves a Tribe or Nation. It's the PODIA's who think they should have the same rights as an historically recognized Nation. It's the adult-onset Indian, the over-nighter, who thinks they should have sovereign rights. It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant, how presumptuous these people are. Wake up one morning and decide to honor your one long ago Cherokee ancestor and think you have inherent rights. This isn't honoring anyone. This is being self-centered and selfish.

"adult-onset Indian" - HA! Good one!
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on September 29, 2009, 07:05:40 pm
Persons of Recently Discovered Indian Ancestry PORDIA. I would suggest that members join some of these black Indian groups and confront them. I'll post a list of them.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 29, 2009, 07:08:03 pm
Well said Bls923


Quote
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.


“On other official records or documents”?  This is meaningless.  Just because someone self identifies as Indian on an official document doesn’t necessarily mean its true.  They also use old Bible Records and affidavits as proof. Pretty lose standards if you ask me.

I would say that the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama could maybe be a Cherokee Heritage Club.  The problem with that is, is that personally I believe many of their members probably don’t have Cherokee heritage at all.  And there are some pretty well documented reasons out there as to why many may believe they have Cherokee heritage. 

And for the ones that do actually have Cherokee Heritage, I doubt that after 200 years of intermarriage with white people, and being  away from the main population of Cherokees in Oklahoma and North Carolina for 200 years, by now very little (if any) Cherokee culture has been retained. That’s why a lot of so called Cherokees have taken on the identity of Plains Indian Tribes and have given themselves made up names that sound more like the names of Indians from Plains Tribes.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 29, 2009, 07:12:58 pm
Paul

Quote
So we talked a bit about what the Creeks in Ok. thought about her State tribe. She said that they weren't Cherokee.


Good point!  She isn’t Cherokee.  We Cherokees are the most misrepresented people in NDN country.  Last count, there were close to 300 bogus Cherokee Tribes.  Maybe she would feel different if the shoe was on the other foot.  Although there are a few bogus Creek Tribes out there, it can’t by a long shot compare with the number of fake Cherokee Tribes. 


Quote
There two tribes have a good relationship.

The Cherokee Nation and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians have a great relationship.  They even had a joint council meeting not too long ago. Here is part of the resolution that they both passed.   

"The Councils of the Cherokee Nation and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians at the Joint Council Meeting held in Catoosa, Oklahoma on April 9, 2008 passed a resolution Opposing Fabricated Cherokee "Tribes" and "Indians". It denounced any further state or federal recognition of "Cherokee" tribes or bands, aside from the those already federally recognized, and committed themselves to exposing and assisting state and federal authorities in eradicating any group which attempts or claims to operate as a government of the Cherokee people.
In addition, the resolution asked that no public funding from any federal or state government should be expended on behalf of non-federally recognized 'Cherokee' tribes or bands and that the Nation would call for a full accounting of all federal monies given to state recognized, unrecognized or SOI©)(3) charitable organizations that claim any Cherokee affiliation."



Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 29, 2009, 07:14:19 pm
Quote
And then she had a few words about the damage all of that Task Farce crap was doing to all Tribes that I can't post here

Lots of damage has been done alright..... damage done to true NDN tribes that is. 

"A battle for what it means to be an Indian tribe and a struggle for benefits provided to Indians is currently being waged by groups seeking to take away the identity and benefits that have been reserved to federally recognized Indian tribes. Hundreds of false Indian groups are claiming to be sovereign tribes and are teaching their own fabricated culture and history as if it were Indian. They apply for and receive aid from the same sources that fund the historic treaty based obligations intended for Indians. Yet they do not measure up to the credentials required of true tribes."
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 29, 2009, 07:15:39 pm
Quote
Money is tight, go ahead and give some congressman a good excuse and you guys will wind up being Fake NDN's too. Then what you gonna do?


Indian Tribe have always been sovereign.  The Federal Government merely recognizes that.  There are cases of people that are clearly NDN. but are not enrolled in a particular Federally Recognized Tribe.  There also are at least some State Recognized Tribes that are legit Indian Tribes, and some Tribes that lost Federal Recognition for whatever reason.  There also are individuals who are NDN, but for one reason or the other don’t have a card. 

I try to separate these "un recognized Indians" from the hordes of Wannabees and New Agers who for the most part claim to be Cherokee.  The problem is that these fakes give all non recognized Indians a bad name.  So not having a card does not necessarily mean that someone is a fake Indian.  You have to use common sense. 

 
Quote
For proof I will point out the requirements (posted above by LOM) to be an Tribe in Alabama. If the Echota's have met ALL of those requirements, then the ONLY difference between them and the CNO (other than the money) is which roll is allowed.

The Echotas talk about rolls in their criteria.  While some Echotas may have ancestors on Cherokee Rolls.   I doubt that this is the case with most of them. 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on September 29, 2009, 07:45:34 pm
Having a card doesn't make you an Indian either. Many Indian people have left Indian communities for whatever reason and have no ties to their birth communities. For all intents and purposes they have fully integrated into the mainstream.
As far as receiving benefits, many folks simply don't want special status, like me. People are not necessarily bonded by blood.
Question... Many black people would say that if you don't identify with the ghetto, fundamentalism, poverty, or even rap music are not black, regardless of their ancestry or physical appearance. If that standard were applied than 45% of black people (the black middle class) are no longer black.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 29, 2009, 08:48:11 pm
Quote
Having a card doesn't make you an Indian either. Many Indian people have left Indian communities for whatever reason and have no ties to their birth communities. For all intents and purposes they have fully integrated into the mainstream.

Theres a difference between being NDN and knowing the cultural, language and traditions of your people.  Many NDNS and/or their families for economic and/or relocation and other reasons were forced to leave their respective communities in the not to distant past.  I would never say that these people and their childeren weren't NDN.  I would just say that they were Indians who are disconnected both spiritually and culturally from their Tribe.  Big difference.  As I said before.  Indian blood makes you NDN.  If you do have a card, from what ever tribe your from, and no matter how intergrated you are into the mainstream.  That pretty much tells me that your NDN.  Thats the reason every Federally Recognized tribe in the country requires proof of Tribal blood.  I personally know Cherokees, Mohawks, Sioux, Navajos,Ojibways, that were raised most of their life away from their Tribal Communities.  But their still NDN to me. 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 29, 2009, 09:17:52 pm
Quote
I would agree with you about some points you make. However, I have yet to see any benefits to members of any state tribes.

Don Naconna, here are a few examples here you can look at in reference to funds diverted by False Tribes

http://taskforce.cherokee.org/Default.aspx?tabid=128 (http://taskforce.cherokee.org/Default.aspx?tabid=128)
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: taraverti on September 29, 2009, 09:40:11 pm
Paul, with all due respect, I think it is you that is confused about the terms Tribe and Nation. In the context of American Indian Sovereignty, they are synonymous. That is where the danger lies.  

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 29, 2009, 10:20:16 pm
BlackWolf



 Many NDNS and/or their families for economic and/or relocation and other reasons were forced to leave their respective communities in the not to distant past.  I would never say that these people and their childeren weren't NDN.  I would just say that they were Indians who are disconnected both spiritually and culturally from their Tribe.  Big difference. 


So just what is that "Big Difference"?
 that it happened in 1938 instead of 1838? ;D

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 29, 2009, 10:47:02 pm
Quote
So just what is that "Big Difference"?
 that it happened in 1938 instead of 1838?

The Cherokees that may have left the Cherokee Nation in 1938 came from documented Cherokee families on Tribal Rolls ( Dawes )
Their families stayed with the Cherokee Nation during the removal and remained with the Tribe.  Their link is to the Cherokee Nation and the Tribal Goverment.  Not to a few ancestors of Cherokee heritage.

There were at least some Cherokees that stayed behind in Alabama.  But that was their choice to stay behind for whatever reason.  Many did their best later to blend in to the dominant society, and for the most part intermarried with the surrounding population.  No Tribal rolls were created there because there was no Tribal Goverment there.  There was no Tribal Goverment there because the Tribal Goverment was in Oklahoma.  Many Cherokees left Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl.  A lot going to California.  But they left the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, where a tribal Goverment was in place and where the bulk of the Cherokee population lived and their families are documented. There are no Tribal Rolls of the Cherokees that stayed in Alabama because there was no tribe there as it was just a few families that stayed. 

Its just like if your an American and have a kid in lets say Europe.  If you want to get that kid an American passport, then you have to prove your an American.  Same goes for enrolling in a Federally Recognzied Tribe.   

Ancestors of the The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians did stay behind.  I can talk about the differences between the EB and the so called  Echota Cherokee Tribe, but I should probably do that in another thread.  If there are any EB members on this site.  Maybe you can explain it better then I can as to why the EB is a legit tribe ( which they clearly are ), and the Echotas are not.

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 29, 2009, 11:15:49 pm


Indian Tribe have always been sovereign.  The Federal Government merely recognizes that.  There are cases of people that are clearly NDN. but are not enrolled in a particular Federally Recognized Tribe.  There also are at least some State Recognized Tribes that are legit Indian Tribes, and some Tribes that lost Federal Recognition for whatever reason.  There also are individuals who are NDN, but for one reason or the other don’t have a card. 

Well at least we can agree on this.

I can talk about the differences between the EB and the so called Echota Cherokee Tribe, but I should probably do that in another thread.

Now why would you want to split a thread about the Echota Tribe to another thread? Does it bother you that bad?


No Tribal rolls were created there because there was no Tribal Goverment there.  There was no Tribal Goverment there because the Tribal Goverment was in Oklahoma.

And it could have something to do with the State of Alabama passing laws forbidding it too. 

and the so called Echota Cherokee Tribe

You know that is the same phrase that those Saturday morning Christian missionaries use when they are telling you that your going to burn in hell if you are a member of one of those SO CALLED churches that don't think like them.   

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: taraverti on September 29, 2009, 11:46:47 pm

No Tribal rolls were created there because there was no Tribal Goverment there.  There was no Tribal Goverment there because the Tribal Goverment was in Oklahoma.

And it could have something to do with the State of Alabama passing laws forbidding it too. 



In which case, if they wanted to remain Cherokee citizens, they could have packed up and moved to Oklahoma and rejoined the tribe. They didn't. They stayed. They chose non-tribal life over tribal citizenship. We all make choices.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 30, 2009, 12:29:05 am

No Tribal rolls were created there because there was no Tribal Goverment there.  There was no Tribal Goverment there because the Tribal Goverment was in Oklahoma.

And it could have something to do with the State of Alabama passing laws forbidding it too.  



In which case, if they wanted to remain Cherokee citizens, they could have packed up and moved to Oklahoma and rejoined the tribe. They didn't. They stayed. They chose non-tribal life over tribal citizenship. We all make choices.



This is true.

 but what they really wanted was to stay alive.

 In my families case they equated moving with sure death.
 (well some of them anyway), some did move, and some of them died doing so. And some died for not wanting to move.

Question:
would anyone here not think that the word of all of the deaths did not get back to the ones that stayed behind.

Personally I don't think that anyone of them thought that they were giving up anything,,, perhaps they thought that it would all blow over. but if they thought that-- on the one hand if I don't move I will lose all of my rights as a Cherokee for me and my descendants and on the other hand if I do go there won't be any descendants, they will kill us out there. hummm kinda a no brainer.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 30, 2009, 01:23:26 am
Quote
Now why would you want to split a thread about the Echota Tribe to another thread? Does it bother you that bad?

Yes, it does bother me to see bogus Cherokee Tribes.  When these groups claim to be Cherokee Tribes, they are only disrespecting the Cherokee heritage that they say they are honoring.  Here's a quote from the Fraudlent Indian Task Force that explains it well. 

"False tribes use elements of the names of real tribes in order to confuse the public and bolster their legitimacy. Consider the “Northern Cherokee Nation of Missouri and Arkansas.” In trademark law this similarity of name with Cherokee Nation is called dilution. Confusion between the true tribe and the imposters causes the public to think less of the true tribe. In fact, when the public sees these false tribes simply organize ex nihilo (out of nothing) and receive Indian benefits, the image of all real tribes is diluted."

I wanted to split the thread to get into why the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is the ONLY legit Cherokee Tribe whose members have ansestors who stayed behind during the Trail of Tears.  As opposed to the bogus Cherokee Tribes.  The Echota Cherokee Tribe is just one of hundreds bogus Cherokee Tribes.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: taraverti on September 30, 2009, 01:28:51 am


In which case, if they wanted to remain Cherokee citizens, they could have packed up and moved to Oklahoma and rejoined the tribe. They didn't. They stayed. They chose non-tribal life over tribal citizenship. We all make choices.



This is true.

 but what they really wanted was to stay alive.

 In my families case they equated moving with sure death.
 (well some of them anyway), some did move, and some of them died doing so. And some died for not wanting to move.

Question:
would anyone here not think that the word of all of the deaths did not get back to the ones that stayed behind.

Personally I don't think that anyone of them thought that they were giving up anything,,, perhaps they thought that it would all blow over. but if they thought that-- on the one hand if I don't move I will lose all of my rights as a Cherokee for me and my descendants and on the other hand if I do go there won't be any descendants, they will kill us out there. hummm kinda a no brainer.


Except there are decedents of those who relocated, who retained their identity at great suffering.  They did NOT all die and get killed.  So choices were made, and you can’t just go back and invent some kind of tribal sovereign government because you don’t like the choices your ancestors made.

If you love and respect your Cherokee ancestry, think about what best serves the Cherokee people as a whole, NOT what you as an individual wants. Respect and support for the sovereignty of the continuous legitimate Cherokee governments and tribes, even if it leaves you out of citizenship, seems like a no-brainer to me, but apparently lots of Cherokee decedents don’t get that. 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 30, 2009, 01:34:05 am
Quote
And it could have something to do with the State of Alabama passing laws forbidding it too.


Same goes for Georgia.  Why did the Trail of Tears happen in the first place?  Even if those that stayed behind wanted to form a Tribal Goverment, there were only a handful of Cherokees that stayed behind.  Not nearly enough to form a Tribal Goverment in the first place.  I'm not denying that it was rough to be Cherokee back then.  Thats why many Cherokees and their decendants that did stay behind did their best to hide their heritage.

Quote
You know that is the same phrase that those Saturday morning Christian missionaries use when they are telling you that your going to burn in hell if you are a member of one of those SO CALLED churches that don't think like them.

Your argument is a fallacy.  I've explained on this thread why the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama is not a Cherokee Tribe.  Its not because I don't personally like their members, but because they are presenting themselves as something that they are not ( a Cherokee Tribe ), and diltuting the identity of the 3 Federally Recognized Cherokee Tribes.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 30, 2009, 02:14:17 am
Quote
Now why would you want to split a thread about the Echota Tribe to another thread? Does it bother you that bad?

Yes, it does bother me to see bogus Cherokee Tribes.  When these groups claim to be Cherokee Tribes, they are only disrespecting the Cherokee heritage that they say they are honoring.  Here's a quote from the Fraudlent Indian Task Force that explains it well. 

"False tribes use elements of the names of real tribes in order to confuse the public and bolster their legitimacy. Consider the “Northern Cherokee Nation of Missouri and Arkansas.” In trademark law this similarity of name with Cherokee Nation is called dilution. Confusion between the true tribe and the imposters causes the public to think less of the true tribe. In fact, when the public sees these false tribes simply organize ex nihilo (out of nothing) and receive Indian benefits, the image of all real tribes is diluted."

I wanted to split the thread to get into why the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is the ONLY legit Cherokee Tribe whose members have ansestors who stayed behind during the Trail of Tears.  As opposed to the bogus Cherokee Tribes.  The Echota Cherokee Tribe is just one of hundreds bogus Cherokee Tribes.


Well if you want to start a thread about the Eastern,,, Band knock your self out.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 30, 2009, 02:33:18 am
Don't need to right now. 


Rattlebone said this.
Quote
You seem to like to compare apples to oranges, and because they are both fruit you declare them the same thing.

 What the EBC did, or what dragging canoe did is not the same thing as maybe some NDN person leaving their tribe over a hundred years ago or something like that, and then their descendant today joining up with somebody with a similar family story thinking they are NDN and trying to form a tribe.

 It just doesn't work that way.

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians are the decendantes of a fairly large population of Cherokees( over a thousand ) who stayed behind during the Trail of Tears as opposed to the realatively few people who stayed behind in Alabama.  And they had a continous existance as a Tribal Goverment and people.  And had legal dealings with the US goverment as a united people.  And they did not do their best to blend in to the dominant society and give up being Cherkoee. And kept up Cheorkee traditions and culture.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 30, 2009, 10:09:30 am
Don't need to right now. 


Rattlebone said this.
Quote
You seem to like to compare apples to oranges, and because they are both fruit you declare them the same thing.

 What the EBC did, or what dragging canoe did is not the same thing as maybe some NDN person leaving their tribe over a hundred years ago or something like that, and then their descendant today joining up with somebody with a similar family story thinking they are NDN and trying to form a tribe.

 It just doesn't work that way.

So posting something by someone that twisted the facts of the Thousands of NDNs that stayed behind, down to "Well,, maybe there was only ONE disgruntled NDN that stayed behind" really makes your point. Well done sir.

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians are the decendantes of a fairly large population of Cherokees( over a thousand ) who stayed behind during the Trail of Tears as opposed to the realatively few people who stayed behind in Alabama.  And they had a continous existance as a Tribal Goverment and people.  And had legal dealings with the US goverment as a united people.  And they did not do their best to blend in to the dominant society and give up being Cherkoee. And kept up Cheorkee traditions and culture.

Now didn't you just say that the REAL Government was in Ok. So how is it that the EB can do this and not some other group?  Damn son ,,, make up your mind,,, Which is it?

Oh yea,,, Posting CNO talking points about some “Northern Cherokee Nation of Missouri and Arkansas.” well as this is a thread about the Echota Tribe ,,,Well,  that didn't really help you either. But keep trying,,,

OK, it's really simple. The State of Alabama says that they have proven themselves to be a REAL Tribe. your job is to prove that they are not. On you mark, Get set, GO,,,,, (And try to stay on topic this time... )
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 30, 2009, 12:43:00 pm
Quote
So posting something by someone that twisted the facts of the Thousands of NDNs that stayed behind, down to "Well,, maybe there was only ONE disgruntled NDN that stayed behind" really makes your point. Well done sir.


Rattlebone's point was valid.  Just change the one to a few, maybe a dozen.  Because there were not that many Cherokees that stayed behind in Alabama. Besides the EB ancestors, there were not thousands that stayed behind.  More like a few hundred that were scattered around a couple of states.  After Removal there were a few hundred scattared around Georgia, Alabama, Tennesee, etc.  And a lot of those joined up with the EB. 


Quote
Now didn't you just say that the REAL Government was in Ok. So how is it that the EB can do this and not some other group?  Damn son ,,, make up your mind,,, Which is it?


The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians has a very different story then that of people who claim Cherokee ancestry from a handful of Cherokeees that stayed behind in Alabama nearly 200 years ago.  I've explained in the above post why they are different situations.  You must not have read it. 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 30, 2009, 12:49:26 pm
Quote
Oh yea,,, Posting CNO talking points about some “Northern Cherokee Nation of Missouri and Arkansas.” well as this is a thread about the Echota Tribe ,,,Well,  that didn't really help you either. But keep trying,,,


It was a valid point.  They are both bogus Cherokee Tribes claiming to be the decendents of a handful of Cherokees from nearly 200 years ago who now think they have the right to form a Tribal Goverment.

Quote
OK, it's really simple. The State of Alabama says that they have proven themselves to be a REAL Tribe. your job is to prove that they are not. On you mark, Get set, GO,,,,, (And try to stay on topic this time... )

There are lots of incentives for the state of Alabama to say this. 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: educatedindian on September 30, 2009, 04:48:40 pm

OK, it's really simple. The State of Alabama says that they have proven themselves to be a REAL Tribe. your job is to prove that they are not. On you mark, Get set, GO,,,


Removed the color, black's easier on my tired old eyes.

This thread you should take a look at.
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2192.0

The short version is...most states don't have any good standards for recognition, lots of phony groups abuse this lack of standards, and under the US Constitution recognition is a federal matter of nation to nation.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on September 30, 2009, 06:26:44 pm
I agree, the fact is that many people cannot document all of their ancestry is a very big problem. If black people were only eligible for federal benefits based on family history, many would be sadly disappointed, if the blood quantum were 50% only a very small number would qualify, Obama would.
In the future perhaps more accurate DNA testing will resolve this problem. I have no doubt that far more people have Indian ancestry than those who are enrolled. Al, you are clearly Indian, but you are unenrolled. BTW Al I sent you an email from Spike's list, let me know what you think about it...
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on September 30, 2009, 06:46:24 pm
In the future perhaps more accurate DNA testing will resolve this problem.

But DNA is often totally irrelevant when it comes to determining what culture someone belongs to. The testing we have now gives results of a particular line of ancestors, which may be a small minority of the number of ancestors someone had, and have nothing to do with what culture they were raised in. Even if we get "more accurate" testing... the results may be interesting, but they will still say nothing about how someone grew up, who their family is, or any of the other things that determine ethnic cultural identity. I only see abuse coming from DNA testing in these matters.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: tachia on September 30, 2009, 07:30:09 pm
In the future perhaps more accurate DNA testing will resolve this problem.

But DNA is often totally irrelevant when it comes to determining what culture someone belongs to. The testing we have now gives results of a particular line of ancestors, which may be a small minority of the number of ancestors someone had, and have nothing to do with what culture they were raised in. Even if we get "more accurate" testing... the results may be interesting, but they will still say nothing about how someone grew up, who their family is, or any of the other things that determine ethnic cultural identity. I only see abuse coming from DNA testing in these matters.

kathryn ..
i agree completely with your post! .. .. i placed that last bit in bold, as we have already been seeing a lot of abuse from these "DNA tests" .. .. just to give a recent example: a woman that i know is not ndn, has long claimed to be Chihuahua Apache and even many times claimed to be the granddaughter of Geronimo .. she has been involved in a couple of fraud "tribes" in texas in the past .. for a period of several years she gave up on these claims and said she was only white and geneology had showed that she had no ndn blood .. ah but she still "felt" as if she was ndn, "in her heart" .. ..

a few months ago she told me that she had saved the money and was having a "DNA test" done .. when i questioned her motives for this she said that she was only doing it for her own peace of mind and nothing more .. i explained further that if she had any thoughts of finding some modicum of ndn blood through DNA and then attempted to "BE" whatever the DNA found that it would be flat out WRONG .. she assured me that she would never do such a thing and only "wanted to know" ..

i had been out of touch with her for quite a few months and recently ran into her again .. well the "DNA test" came back saying that she was of Lakota heritage .. *shaking head* .. so  .. she is now learning the Lakota language via the internet, found some (supposedly) Lakota man on the internet .. he is "adopting her, in her words, "into the tribe" .. she is planning to go to Cherry Creek for what she is calling a "hunkapi ceremony" .. is planning on moving there and, her words again, "becoming an enrolled member of the tribe" .. etc...

she was born and raised white, decided as an adult that she was ndn, claimed to be Apache for years yet never learned about the culture and instead joined a fake "cult" that practiced the typical mix and match new age crap and called it "native american spirituality" .. her family has done extensive genealogy proving to her that they are white with no ndn blood anywhere and they all think she is nuts ..

ah but now, thanks to a "DNA test" she is going to go and "BE" Lakota! .. .. ..

and as many of us already know, this sort of story is widespread now ..

DNA tests will lead to abuse? .. as far as i am concerned, yep!
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 30, 2009, 07:58:04 pm
There were a couple of Cherokee Rolls taken after the Trail of Tears for Cherokees residing East of the Mississippi.  I don't know how many Cherokees may have been excluded from these rolls, nor do I know how many of these Cherokees returned to the Eastern Band.  But here they are.

The Siler Roll 1851 - This is a list of 1700+ Cherokees living East of the Mississippi who were entitiled to a per capita payment pursurant to an Act of Congress.  I'm assuming this includes the ancestors of the Eastern Band.  I couldn't find it online though.


The Chapman Roll 1852 - This was the payment roll based on the Siler Roll. 


http://www.tngennet.org/cherokee_by_blood/chapman.htm (http://www.tngennet.org/cherokee_by_blood/chapman.htm)


Alabama section of Chapman Roll which shows 4 counties in Alabama and I counted about 69 people.
http://www.tngennet.org/cherokee_by_blood/chapal.htm#Jackson (http://www.tngennet.org/cherokee_by_blood/chapal.htm#Jackson)
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on September 30, 2009, 08:19:54 pm
It should also be noted that in addition to the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama, there are 3 other State Recognized Cherkoee Tribes in Alabama.

Cherokee Tribe of NE Alabama.
http://www.cherokeetribeofnortheastalabama.com/ (http://www.cherokeetribeofnortheastalabama.com/)

The Cher-O Creek Intra Tribal Indians
http://www.native-american-online.org/CHER-O-CREEK.htm (http://www.native-american-online.org/CHER-O-CREEK.htm)

The United Cherokee -Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation
http://www.ucan-online.org/ (http://www.ucan-online.org/)
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on September 30, 2009, 10:47:05 pm
Don't need to right now. 


Rattlebone said this.
Quote
You seem to like to compare apples to oranges, and because they are both fruit you declare them the same thing.

 What the EBC did, or what dragging canoe did is not the same thing as maybe some NDN person leaving their tribe over a hundred years ago or something like that, and then their descendant today joining up with somebody with a similar family story thinking they are NDN and trying to form a tribe.

 It just doesn't work that way.

So posting something by someone that twisted the facts of the Thousands of NDNs that stayed behind, down to "Well,, maybe there was only ONE disgruntled NDN that stayed behind" really makes your point. Well done sir.

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians are the decendantes of a fairly large population of Cherokees( over a thousand ) who stayed behind during the Trail of Tears as opposed to the realatively few people who stayed behind in Alabama.  And they had a continous existance as a Tribal Goverment and people.  And had legal dealings with the US goverment as a united people.  And they did not do their best to blend in to the dominant society and give up being Cherkoee. And kept up Cheorkee traditions and culture.

Now didn't you just say that the REAL Government was in Ok. So how is it that the EB can do this and not some other group?  Damn son ,,, make up your mind,,, Which is it?

Oh yea,,, Posting CNO talking points about some “Northern Cherokee Nation of Missouri and Arkansas.” well as this is a thread about the Echota Tribe ,,,Well,  that didn't really help you either. But keep trying,,,

OK, it's really simple. The State of Alabama says that they have proven themselves to be a REAL Tribe. your job is to prove that they are not. On you mark, Get set, GO,,,,, (And try to stay on topic this time... )


 Paul,

 Let me put things to you from a personal experience of mine.

 By blood I am Choctaw and Cherokee, but most just know me as a Choctaw since I was raised up with my identity as a Choctaw. Both of my Choctaw and Cherokee blood and ancestors is proven and traceable.  However my great great grandmother's are in fact Eastern Band of Cherokee that did not stick around with those who would be considered part of the EBC today. Now they did have family of course that had removed to what is now Oklahoma. So later in her life she decided to go to Indian territory and live near them. Then later she moved to East Texas, and that prevented her from being enrolled as far as I know.

 Now here is the kicker with this story Paul. She is not some person that was born sooo long ago that nobody knew her. She was born in 1869 and died in the 1950's. On top of this all she was alive during the time my father was alive, and she is the one who raided my still living grandmother. I know first hand accounts and stories about her from my grandmother, whom as I have already mentioned, was in fact raised by her. I was told stories how she would go in the back yard and pick what my grandmother jokingly calls "weeds" and would cook them for dinner. This was much to the dismay of my grandmother when she was a kid. I know that she was delighted when her kids and grand kids would give birth to a dark skinned person baby. So she is not some far distant person in the past of my family, but rather somebody who because of stories about her I almost felt like I knew her in person. Sadly I was born a couple decades after she had already passed.

I also need to point out to you that she was no thin blood or low BQ person. She was 5/8's Cherokee by blood, and her husband who of course was my gg grandfather was 1/4 blood. He however was killed in the early 1900's when his horses trampled him when they had been startled by some bee's he was carrying on his wagon.

 As I have pointed out already, I do have government documents going all the way back to the 1700's up until today to prove everything I have said here. On top of this, as I have also pointed out, these are people that were alive in times that those alive today actually knew them. My grandmother is a very sharp women for being in her 80's and you would think she was more like in her 60's if you met her. So the point being her mind is still very sharp and she can pass down things word of mouth about our family very well. This is true of her sisters and brothers whom are alive and of course my aunts and uncles. This is on top of how I would spend the summers with my great grandfather, whom naturally was the son of this gg grandmother I am telling you about.

  My family in Oklahoma is recognized by the the Choctaw community as being Choctaw/Cherokee. Now I do live in California, but the NDN's out here know and recognize me to be NDN as well. The local elders here took me in when I was younger I learned from them, even if I was not from their people. So like my family I am known by Indians to be the Indian I say I am. However that does not give me the right to find people with similar stories and family backgrounds; then go form our own Cherokee tribe because for whatever reasons our families did not or chose not to enroll. Things just don't work that way, and they should not be that way.

 I do recognize the two Cherokee tribes in Oklahoma, and the the EBC to be family and relations since we carry the same blood and I am related to them by blood. I do consider myself to be a Choctaw/Cherokee person as I have now pointed out here many many times. However that does not give me or anyone else the right to form our own tribe. To do so I feel is disrespecting the Cherokee Nation, and treating them and their sovereignty as nothing more then some heritage club. That to me would be performing an abomination, and not only spitting on their sovereignty, but possibly doing things that could jeopardize it.

  The Cherokee, Lakota, Choctaw ect are not just some heritage groups. They are a people and a nation just as real as the United States or any other nation. In fact of course we have our own distinct cultures and languages, which I do not feel the United States does. So nobody should be able to start their own "cherokee Nation" anymore then somebody can move to Canada and start some mini United States.

 Enrollment does not make one an Indian, and neither will creating some bogus tribe. Just like being Indian is not just something you feel in your heart. To me it's about being recognized by your people and other Indians as one. To live by the ways and values of your people. Creating some tribe based on some far off distant ancestor does none of that, and is dangerous to real NDN nations, and bogus from the get go.

If these Echota people feel they are NDN and it is something important to them and their identities that is fine. They should be happy with that, and live that proudly without stepping over boundaries they have no right to cross.

 Another thing to keep in mind is that there are some people that are enrolled, but know not their traditions and don't even care. Some dont have any connection to the people they are enrolled with past their enrollment. Some of these are full blooded or close to it, but most are mixed and you would just think they are black or white if you seen them. To me they are just "paper Indians," and not really Indian at all. You take away that enrollment card, and they are just another white or black person. Still the their tribal governments view them as relations and tribal members. So in respecting the sovereignty of those nations, those people must be viewed at least politically as NDN.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 30, 2009, 10:50:18 pm

OK, it's really simple. The State of Alabama says that they have proven themselves to be a REAL Tribe. your job is to prove that they are not. On you mark, Get set, GO,,,


Removed the color, black's easier on my tired old eyes.

This thread you should take a look at.
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2192.0

The short version is...most states don't have any good standards for recognition, lots of phony groups abuse this lack of standards, and under the US Constitution recognition is a federal matter of nation to nation.


@ educatedindian,
Sorry for stressing you eyes.

The thread link that you posted here was the starting point of this thread, but spun off to it's own thread here.

As for State standards. Yes there are some states that have some very loose standards, but as can be seen from the post #52 of LittleOldMan I think that Alabama has some rather impressive standards. but that won't mean anything to those who already feel that no matter who the Tribe is, if they are not on the fed list their Fake. No way, No how, No matter what.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on September 30, 2009, 11:21:16 pm
There were a couple of Cherokee Rolls taken after the Trail of Tears for Cherokees residing East of the Mississippi.  I don't know how many Cherokees may have been excluded from these rolls, nor do I know how many of these Cherokees returned to the Eastern Band.  But here they are.

The Siler Roll 1851 - This is a list of 1700+ Cherokees living East of the Mississippi who were entitiled to a per capita payment pursurant to an Act of Congress.  I'm assuming this includes the ancestors of the Eastern Band.  I couldn't find it online though.


The Chapman Roll 1852 - This was the payment roll based on the Siler Roll.  


http://www.tngennet.org/cherokee_by_blood/chapman.htm (http://www.tngennet.org/cherokee_by_blood/chapman.htm)


Alabama section of Chapman Roll which shows 4 counties in Alabama and I counted about 69 people.
http://www.tngennet.org/cherokee_by_blood/chapal.htm#Jackson (http://www.tngennet.org/cherokee_by_blood/chapal.htm#Jackson)


BW,
Thanks for the links,,,,Way cool,,,  that was a gold mine for my family tree research. I have found 3 full families and about 4 individual people on those rolls. You wouldn't happen to have a link to the Henderson rolls would you? I can't seem to find a list of names for it like this roll you posted has?
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 01, 2009, 12:01:26 am


 Paul,

 Let me put things to you from a personal experience of mine.

 By blood I am Choctaw and Cherokee, but most just know me as a Choctaw since I was raised up with my identity as a Choctaw. Both of my Choctaw and Cherokee blood and ancestors is proven and traceable.  However my great great grandmother's are in fact Eastern Band of Cherokee that did not stick around with those who would be considered part of the EBC today. Now they did have family of course that had removed to what is now Oklahoma. So later in her life she decided to go to Indian territory and live near them. Then later she moved to East Texas, and that prevented her from being enrolled as far as I know.

 Now here is the kicker with this story Paul. She is not some person that was born sooo long ago that nobody knew her. She was born in 1869 and died in the 1950's. On top of this all she was alive during the time my father was alive, and she is the one who raided my still living grandmother. I know first hand accounts and stories about her from my grandmother, whom as I have already mentioned, was in fact raised by her. I was told stories how she would go in the back yard and pick what my grandmother jokingly calls "weeds" and would cook them for dinner. This was much to the dismay of my grandmother when she was a kid. I know that she was delighted when her kids and grand kids would give birth to a dark skinned person baby. So she is not some far distant person in the past of my family, but rather somebody who because of stories about her I almost felt like I knew her in person. Sadly I was born a couple decades after she had already passed.

I also need to point out to you that she was no thin blood or low BQ person. She was 5/8's Cherokee by blood, and her husband who of course was my gg grandfather was 1/4 blood. He however was killed in the early 1900's when his horses trampled him when they had been startled by some bee's he was carrying on his wagon.

 As I have pointed out already, I do have government documents going all the way back to the 1700's up until today to prove everything I have said here. On top of this, as I have also pointed out, these are people that were alive in times that those alive today actually knew them. My grandmother is a very sharp women for being in her 80's and you would think she was more like in her 60's if you met her. So the point being her mind is still very sharp and she can pass down things word of mouth about our family very well. This is true of her sisters and brothers whom are alive and of course my aunts and uncles. This is on top of how I would spend the summers with my great grandfather, whom naturally was the son of this gg grandmother I am telling you about.

  My family in Oklahoma is recognized by the the Choctaw community as being Choctaw/Cherokee. Now I do live in California, but the NDN's out here know and recognize me to be NDN as well. The local elders here took me in when I was younger I learned from them, even if I was not from their people. So like my family I am known by Indians to be the Indian I say I am. However that does not give me the right to find people with similar stories and family backgrounds; then go form our own Cherokee tribe because for whatever reasons our families did not or chose not to enroll. Things just don't work that way, and they should not be that way.

 I do recognize the two Cherokee tribes in Oklahoma, and the the EBC to be family and relations since we carry the same blood and I am related to them by blood. I do consider myself to be a Choctaw/Cherokee person as I have now pointed out here many many times. However that does not give me or anyone else the right to form our own tribe. To do so I feel is disrespecting the Cherokee Nation, and treating them and their sovereignty as nothing more then some heritage club. That to me would be performing an abomination, and not only spitting on their sovereignty, but possibly doing things that could jeopardize it.

  The Cherokee, Lakota, Choctaw ect are not just some heritage groups. They are a people and a nation just as real as the United States or any other nation. In fact of course we have our own distinct cultures and languages, which I do not feel the United States does. So nobody should be able to start their own "cherokee Nation" anymore then somebody can move to Canada and start some mini United States.

 Enrollment does not make one an Indian, and neither will creating some bogus tribe. Just like being Indian is not just something you feel in your heart. To me it's about being recognized by your people and other Indians as one. To live by the ways and values of your people. Creating some tribe based on some far off distant ancestor does none of that, and is dangerous to real NDN nations, and bogus from the get go.

If these Echota people feel they are NDN and it is something important to them and their identities that is fine. They should be happy with that, and live that proudly without stepping over boundaries they have no right to cross.

 Another thing to keep in mind is that there are some people that are enrolled, but know not their traditions and don't even care. Some dont have any connection to the people they are enrolled with past their enrollment. Some of these are full blooded or close to it, but most are mixed and you would just think they are black or white if you seen them. To me they are just "paper Indians," and not really Indian at all. You take away that enrollment card, and they are just another white or black person. Still the their tribal governments view them as relations and tribal members. So in respecting the sovereignty of those nations, those people must be viewed at least politically as NDN.


If you change your Choctaw to my Creek and your Texas for my Alabama and your great great grandmother's death date to my great  Grandmother in 1925 you have written my family's story too. And yes I too have some "paper Indians" in the family in the CNO too. along with some that are not so "paper". Where the BIG difference comes in is that I also have some family in the Echota Tribe. 

As for me I seem to see the legitimacy of all Fed listed Tribes and the State Tribes where the State or the Tribe has well defined criterion. Some say that you can't make a Tribe. but it seems to me that they already have. And there isn't anything that can be done about it (other than to bitch and moan). The Task Force seems to have done plenty of this. to the point where members of other tribes are wondering if it isn't doing more harm than good. 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on October 01, 2009, 01:03:12 am
If you change your Choctaw to my Creek and your Texas for my Alabama and your great great grandmother's death date to my great  Grandmother in 1925 you have written my family's story too.

... but Paul, this is what you said about your family history:
I have only in the past year began to investigate my NDN heritage. And even less time investigating the Echotas . I was raised white, so until an NDN community (either one) accepts me, I will always be white, no matter what a card says.
... ... ...
It's not that they (NDN's) don't accept me now, it's that they don't even know who I am.
[emphases added]

That is a very different story than what Rattlebone posted.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on October 01, 2009, 01:32:35 am


 Paul,

 Let me put things to you from a personal experience of mine.

 By blood I am Choctaw and Cherokee, but most just know me as a Choctaw since I was raised up with my identity as a Choctaw. Both of my Choctaw and Cherokee blood and ancestors is proven and traceable.  However my great great grandmother's are in fact Eastern Band of Cherokee that did not stick around with those who would be considered part of the EBC today. Now they did have family of course that had removed to what is now Oklahoma. So later in her life she decided to go to Indian territory and live near them. Then later she moved to East Texas, and that prevented her from being enrolled as far as I know.

 Now here is the kicker with this story Paul. She is not some person that was born sooo long ago that nobody knew her. She was born in 1869 and died in the 1950's. On top of this all she was alive during the time my father was alive, and she is the one who raided my still living grandmother. I know first hand accounts and stories about her from my grandmother, whom as I have already mentioned, was in fact raised by her. I was told stories how she would go in the back yard and pick what my grandmother jokingly calls "weeds" and would cook them for dinner. This was much to the dismay of my grandmother when she was a kid. I know that she was delighted when her kids and grand kids would give birth to a dark skinned person baby. So she is not some far distant person in the past of my family, but rather somebody who because of stories about her I almost felt like I knew her in person. Sadly I was born a couple decades after she had already passed.

I also need to point out to you that she was no thin blood or low BQ person. She was 5/8's Cherokee by blood, and her husband who of course was my gg grandfather was 1/4 blood. He however was killed in the early 1900's when his horses trampled him when they had been startled by some bee's he was carrying on his wagon.

 As I have pointed out already, I do have government documents going all the way back to the 1700's up until today to prove everything I have said here. On top of this, as I have also pointed out, these are people that were alive in times that those alive today actually knew them. My grandmother is a very sharp women for being in her 80's and you would think she was more like in her 60's if you met her. So the point being her mind is still very sharp and she can pass down things word of mouth about our family very well. This is true of her sisters and brothers whom are alive and of course my aunts and uncles. This is on top of how I would spend the summers with my great grandfather, whom naturally was the son of this gg grandmother I am telling you about.

  My family in Oklahoma is recognized by the the Choctaw community as being Choctaw/Cherokee. Now I do live in California, but the NDN's out here know and recognize me to be NDN as well. The local elders here took me in when I was younger I learned from them, even if I was not from their people. So like my family I am known by Indians to be the Indian I say I am. However that does not give me the right to find people with similar stories and family backgrounds; then go form our own Cherokee tribe because for whatever reasons our families did not or chose not to enroll. Things just don't work that way, and they should not be that way.

 I do recognize the two Cherokee tribes in Oklahoma, and the the EBC to be family and relations since we carry the same blood and I am related to them by blood. I do consider myself to be a Choctaw/Cherokee person as I have now pointed out here many many times. However that does not give me or anyone else the right to form our own tribe. To do so I feel is disrespecting the Cherokee Nation, and treating them and their sovereignty as nothing more then some heritage club. That to me would be performing an abomination, and not only spitting on their sovereignty, but possibly doing things that could jeopardize it.

  The Cherokee, Lakota, Choctaw ect are not just some heritage groups. They are a people and a nation just as real as the United States or any other nation. In fact of course we have our own distinct cultures and languages, which I do not feel the United States does. So nobody should be able to start their own "cherokee Nation" anymore then somebody can move to Canada and start some mini United States.

 Enrollment does not make one an Indian, and neither will creating some bogus tribe. Just like being Indian is not just something you feel in your heart. To me it's about being recognized by your people and other Indians as one. To live by the ways and values of your people. Creating some tribe based on some far off distant ancestor does none of that, and is dangerous to real NDN nations, and bogus from the get go.

If these Echota people feel they are NDN and it is something important to them and their identities that is fine. They should be happy with that, and live that proudly without stepping over boundaries they have no right to cross.

 Another thing to keep in mind is that there are some people that are enrolled, but know not their traditions and don't even care. Some dont have any connection to the people they are enrolled with past their enrollment. Some of these are full blooded or close to it, but most are mixed and you would just think they are black or white if you seen them. To me they are just "paper Indians," and not really Indian at all. You take away that enrollment card, and they are just another white or black person. Still the their tribal governments view them as relations and tribal members. So in respecting the sovereignty of those nations, those people must be viewed at least politically as NDN.


If you change your Choctaw to my Creek and your Texas for my Alabama and your great great grandmother's death date to my great  Grandmother in 1925 you have written my family's story too. And yes I too have some "paper Indians" in the family in the CNO too. along with some that are not so "paper". Where the BIG difference comes in is that I also have some family in the Echota Tribe. 

As for me I seem to see the legitimacy of all Fed listed Tribes and the State Tribes where the State or the Tribe has well defined criterion. Some say that you can't make a Tribe. but it seems to me that they already have. And there isn't anything that can be done about it (other than to bitch and moan). The Task Force seems to have done plenty of this. to the point where members of other tribes are wondering if it isn't doing more harm than good. 


 The problem here is not if those in Echota have the Indian blood they claim to or not. Nor is it that I am saying I don't think they are Cherokee because they might be PODIA etc.

 The issue for me is that a lot of people start these tribes for grants, federal benefits etc that are earmarked for NDN people. The problem here is that some that claim to be NDN don't have even the proof you and I say we similarly have in common.

 So in turn this is opening a possible floodgate for those who don't have the proof you or I do, and enabling them to take money that should go towards more full blooded people such as those on Pine Ridge who have not choice to be anything but NDN and live through great hardships because of it. Heck there is even bad poverty in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and it is within the members who are full blooded and close to it, and not those who are low BQ and could pass for white or black.

 So my point is there is nothing wrong with these Echota people saying they are Indian anymore then you or I. In this case I have proof of my claims and so do you. Regardless I am against people forming their own tribes.

 You have to look past personal pride here and look at the bigger picture, and that bigger picture would be protecting those who are without doubt NDN. When you do that, I feel you are thinking more in a community mindset instead just "self," and thinking on part of the community instead of self is very much an NDN way to be.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on October 01, 2009, 02:03:38 am
That would be like saying that all of those Jewish people and their descendants that were rounded up and sent to Hitler's death camps are Jewish and all the rest of you are not. If your family managed to escape the roundup that's great but by doing so they gave up their descendants rights.

At the risk of getting all Godwiny: The Diasporic Jews who have not assimilated have a vibrant, living culture. They have, yes, "tribal" ways of determining who is and isn't Jewish. Those of us with a distant ancestor or two who married in to families of other ethnicities, and took on their traditions and culture, are simply not Jews.

The analogy to what (it seems to me) you are advocating is that people whose family tree includes an assimilated Jewish Great-Great Grandfather should declare themselves Jewish, declare that their county in Indiana or Iowa is now a Jewish state, call it something like Is-Real, declare themselves Rabbis and elect a Prime Minister of Is-Real... even though all of them were raised Baptist, don't know any Hebrew or Yiddish beyond "kvetch" and "chutzpah", and also all happen to be pale people with blonde hair and blue eyes who have never heard of the foods ethnic Jews eat, or heard the songs they know, and who have never experienced one second of anti-semitism in their lives, and wouldn't recognize it if they did.

And maybe while they're at it, the people of Is-Real should also start performing their ideas of Islamic ceremonies. Because they're all "desert peoples", you know. And build a temple even though they've never been to one themselves.

And then if ethnic Jews find the people's behaviour disturbing... cry "oppression!"

I'm sorry if this seems insensitive or too broad a comparison to you, and maybe I'm joking about this too much, but really, that's the apt Jewish comparison to me. It's reached that level of absurdity. Maybe if the (Newage version of) Kabbalah craze had lasted longer, we would see more of this sort of stuff. Hell, Madonna decided to give herself a "Jewish" name. And most people realized how absurd that was... maybe because ethnic Jews are more real to them than ethnic NDNs.

Though (and I can't believe I'm saying this), in Madonna's defense, having lived in New York City, she probably has had more exposure to living Jewish culture than most of these heritage groups have had to any living NDN cultures.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on October 01, 2009, 01:00:01 pm
The real difference is that Judaism is a religion and anyone can convert, although some Jewish groups don't accept conversion, almost all do. My ex wife was half Jewish and half WASP . She remarried a Jewish man but wasn't considered to actually be Jewish because her mother was a Christian, although she raised her son as a Jew. Our son was raised by my second wife who, like me is a non believer. We did raise him reaching him about all religions including his Jewish heritage and my parents Christianity.
Having blood ties doesn't mean anything in a religion, as religion is based on a common belief system. I don't see the analogy with having Indian blood. Here many non status and status Indians have no ties to Indians or Indian communities and that is their choice, its not a matter of blood its a matter of choice. My cousin who is Echota and urged me to enroll is what I would call a Bible thumping Christian to her having Cherokee blood meant being a fundamentalist Christian. I have nothing in common with Christians regardless of their ethnicity.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 01, 2009, 01:54:59 pm
If you change your Choctaw to my Creek and your Texas for my Alabama and your great great grandmother's death date to my great  Grandmother in 1925 you have written my family's story too.

... but Paul, this is what you said about your family history:
I have only in the past year began to investigate my NDN heritage. And even less time investigating the Echotas . I was raised white, so until an NDN community (either one) accepts me, I will always be white, no matter what a card says.
... ... ...
It's not that they (NDN's) don't accept me now, it's that they don't even know who I am.
[emphases added]

That is a very different story than what Rattlebone posted.

@Kathryn, et al,,,
Of the 3 things that you posted here you are correct that there is a big difference between RB's story and mine. I did not list ALL of the things we had in common or that were different. I didn't think I needed to. If this helps,,,  Where RB's story and mine separate is in about paragraph 4 of his post #90. A year ago I did not know this side of my family existed. In that year I have met a lot of family that I never knew. I will admit that my reply along this line was a defensive one. It seem to me that this debate had migrated to questioning my linage.One example came from BW's statement in post #55 when he said "Because they are Cherokee by blood with documented Cherokee families.  Not just someone who was told they were Cherokee by Grandma. "( I could quote other examples through out this thread, but why bother). So I guess that what I was doing was poorly trying to point out that (even tho I didn't know it a year ago) I too have a reasonably acceptable BQ. (and yes, I know that I just said that wrong too) I believe this is the same for Most of the Echota's as well (and no, I don't mean all of them either). I will point out that while it is OK for RattleBone (and some others) to have an oral family history, If I quote any of mine, BlackWolf (and plenty of others)  make light of it. 

 RattleBone however in his post #95 said this:
"So my point is there is nothing wrong with these Echota people saying they are Indian anymore then you or I. In this case I have proof of my claims and so do you. Regardless I am against people forming their own tribes".

THANK YOU RB. I don't feel so defective now.

I understand that there are plenty of fake tribes out there. and I know that ALL here know that not all of the unrecognized Tribes are fake. It was the intent of this thread to discover if the Echota Tribe was such a Tribe. I had hoped that people would discuss the faults and merits of that Tribe from knowledge of Them. So far only 2 people here have done that. One is/was a member and the other does know them.  All of the other replies seem to be based on whether or not it's cool to form a new tribe. I will point out that as I said above,,, that has already been done many, many years ago. And that they had to prove that they had been a Tribe for the past 200 years to be State recognized. So what now?
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on October 01, 2009, 02:26:02 pm
I have a problem with the concept that white 19th century racists determined who was and who wasn't an Indian. Today the Virginia tribes are finally receiving recognition after a white racist "extingushed" them and declared that there were no Indians in Virginia. federal recognition does not really determine who is and who isn't an Indian, just who got on the rolls. It appears that Indians had very litte say in the matter.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on October 01, 2009, 06:59:24 pm
As folks seem to believe that state recognised tribes are not authentic. This is from the Nanticoke tribe of the Delmarva Peninsula and New Jersey. I believe we have Nanticoke members in the group. I am originally from PA which does not have state recognised tribes, alhough the last census indicated that 11,000+ people listed their race as Native American.

An American Indian Tribal Nation…

 The Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indian Tribe is a sovereign American Indian Nation made up of the Nanticoke and Lenni-Lenape people whose homelands have been in Southern New Jersey and the Delmarva Peninsula from ancient times.  Enrolled tribal citizens have met the mandatory documented descendancy and blood quantum requirements from the historic core tribal families as set by our tribal law.  Our tribal sovereignty was granted by the almighty Creator to our ancestors and was never surrendered by our tribal leadership to any other authority.  Our tribal citizens freely submit to the jurisdiction of, and pledge allegiance to, the Tribal government of the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indian Tribe and agree to abide by any and all laws and rules of the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape and its governing documents and will respect and comply with the decisions of the duly elected Tribal Council. American Indians are citizens of the United States and their own tribes. The Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indian Tribe expects its citizens to uphold the just laws of the federal, state, and tribal governments and calls on the federal and state governments to honor and respect its intrinsic tribal authority.

 A Non-Gaming Tribe…

 In keeping with the guidance of the almighty Creator, the admonishment of our tribal elders, the standing policies of our tribal leaders and the spiritual legacy left for future generations of our people, our tribal law requires that the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indian Tribe shall not own, manage, operate or sponsor any business which profits from the promotion of vice.  This law applies to the Tribe itself and to all of its current or future subsidiaries.

            This tribal law specifically bans casino style gambling, the operating of slot machines, the selling of cigarettes, cigars, alcohol, pornography and federally or state banned substances by the tribe or its current or future subsidiaries.   

 An Affirmative Relationship with the State of New Jersey…

The Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indian Tribe is a recognized American Indian Tribe by the State of New Jersey through both concurrent legislative resolution (S.C.R. 1982 No.73) and through state statute (N.J.P.L. 1995 c. 295; N.J.S. 52:16A-53 et. seq).  For almost two decades, the Tribe enjoyed unquestioned state recognized status. However, since 2001, the Tribe and its tribal citizens have suffered through interpretive ambiguities and direct attacks by some state officials regarding its status.  Such attacks on the state recognition of the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape ignore evidence from state records and actions supporting the history of such recognition and undermine the statutory responsibility of the Commission on American Indian Affairs to represent the interest of our tribal communities

 ·        The 1992 New Jersey Statutes, in authorizing correction to birth certificates (26:8-49),  listed that the “three New Jersey tribes of American Indians, the Powhatan-Renape Nation, the Ramapough Mountain Indians, or the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians” are able to substantiate American Indian Ancestry based upon their respective tribal records. 

 

·        The official November 2000 report to the Governor and Legislature from the New Jersey Commission on American Indian Affairs states, in its “Background” section, that the Powhatan-Renape Indians, Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians and the Ramapough Mountain Indians are “…the only three tribes recognized by the State of New Jersey.”  Moreover, the section entitled, “Legislative Action,” repeats the detail that, “There are only three tribes in the State of New Jersey that are legally recognized by the State.”

·        The Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indian Tribe was designated by the State of New Jersey in the 2000 United States Census as “SDAISA,” which is a “State Designated American Indian Statistical Area” and is defined by the US Census Bureau as: “A statistical entity for state recognized American Indian tribes that do not have a state recognized reservation. SDAISAs are identified and delineated for the Census Bureau by a designated state official.”

·        According to New Jersey Statute 52:16A-56(4)(e), the Commission on American Indian Affairs has the statutory responsibility to serve as the “liaison among American Indian communities, the State and federal governments.” 

 Our tribal government and tribal citizens are a part of the history of New Jersey.  We seek to reinforce and expand our affirmative partnership with the state that reflects an understanding of Tribal History in New Jersey and provides for a improved tribal-state relationship.  Bills have been introduced in the New Jersey State Legislature on behalf of the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey, Inc. reaffirming the Tribe’s 1982 state recognition by Concurrent Resolution No. 73.  A new public law reaffirming our recognition will provide the Tribe with statutory protection of its eligibility for the federal benefits, rights and attributes extended to federally recognized Indian Tribes and federal protection for the sale of artwork, and the right to engage in traditional religious practices and ceremonies.  In spite of the previous recognition by resolution, the Tribe has suffered through subsequent governmental misinterpretations of its rights as an Indian Tribe, placing tribal artisans at risk of losing the ability to advertise their crafts as “Native American Made,” which is strictly regulated by the federal government.  Additionally, the new legislation will preserve the Tribe’s ability to apply for federal funding restricted for Native Americans and uphold the legitimacy of marriages solemnized through Tribal ceremonies. 

 While the 1982 resolution and the current bill provide for such federal benefits and acknowledgement, they do not bestow federal recognition, which is a much more lengthy, intensive and costly process through the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs and is also being pursued by the Tribe.  The current bill includes language negating the possibility that the Tribe could use its state recognition to establish a casino, which is also a federally regulated process and would require a tribal compact with the state.  Tribal leaders willingly accepted this preclusion, as the Tribe had previously determined not to pursue Indian gaming, but to continue its tradition of community benefit services, cultural retention and promotion of its heritage.

 The following information was prepared by the Government Relations Committee of the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indian Tribe.  It provides insight into the reasons that state recognition is important for the tribal government and tribal citizens, and how the state can benefit from reaffirming recognition and actively partnering with the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indian Tribe.  Our major request can be summed up in two ways: 1) An immediate confirmation of our status as a state recognized tribe through a proclamation from the Governor and an official letter to the Indian Arts and Crafts Board; 2) Statutory reaffirmation of state recognition and acknowledgement of our tribal government.

 Why a Reaffirmation of our State Recognition is Important to our Tribal Government –

1.      It enhances the Tribe’s ability to apply for federal funding restricted for Native Americans.  Without state recognition, tribes are ineligible for certain types of funding and are no longer as competitive for funding for which they may still technically qualify.  Federal funding for American Indians is primarily targeted to the more than 560 federally recognized tribes.  The State recognized tribes, of which there are approximately 40, must compete for what is left.  Without state recognition, a tribe is rarely able to receive American Indian educational, social, health and community development funding.

2.      It empowers the Tribe’s ability to impact and oversee American Indian Title VII Education Funding, Programming and Initiatives (20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). This provision works toward the goal of ensuring that programs that serve Indian children are of the highest quality and provide for not only the basic elementary and secondary educational needs, but also the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of tribal children so that such students can meet the same challenging State student academic achievement standards as all other students are expected to meet.

3.      It empowers the Tribe to be the primary service provider for certain federal initiatives, such as the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (section 166) and the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Program (Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997).

4.      It allows the Tribe to establish American Indian Tribally Owned Companies (AITOC) which qualify for special government contracting set asides and incentives.  AITOCs are able to qualify for Small Business Association 8(a) Business Development Program exceptions, because the business is helping to support an entire tribal government and community through economic development opportunities (13 CFR 124.506).

5.      It grants eligibility for the Tribe to participate in the benefits of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act as a governmental agency, providing programming and benefits to tribal citizens (25 USC 450 B).

6.      It qualifies the Tribe to protect tribal children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 USC 21), providing a partnership between tribal and state government in issue of foster care. 

7.      It entitles the Tribal government to participate in the Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), which provides assistance to Indian tribes in the development of viable Indian communities. Indian tribes may use block grants to improve the housing stock, provide community facilities, make infrastructure improvements, and expand job opportunities by supporting the economic development of their communities.

8.      It entitles the Tribe’s demographics to be included in the United States Census through a State Designated American Indian Statistical Area (SDAISA), which is a statistical entity for state recognized American Indian tribes that do not have a state recognized reservation. SDAISAs are identified and delineated for the Census Bureau by a designated state official. They generally encompass a compact and contiguous area that contains a concentration of individuals who identify with a state recognized American Indian tribe and in which there is structured or organized tribal activity.

9.      It provides for the legitimacy of marriages solemnized through Tribal ceremonies. Those who oversee and register marriages endorsed by tribal tradition and law may not have clergy “credentials” in the non-Native sense.  Such marriages are accepted if the tribal government endorsing them has state or federal recognition… and, therefore, may act as its own religious judicatory.

10.  It affirms the authority granted tribal traditional spiritual leaders to serve as chaplains in institutional and military settings.  Endorsement by a tribe with state or federal recognition is required for most academic, hospital, prison, and military chaplain positions for traditional Native American spiritual leaders, since customary “clergy credentialing” does not apply.

11.  It allows the tribe to participate in regional, national and international forums which require state or federal recognition.  The National Congress of American Indians only allows state and federally recognized tribes to join and have governmental voting privileges.  This helped our partnership with the state in the legal battle to preserve the Black Creek site in Vernon, NJ.  The land, which the State Department of Environmental Protection has bought through its Green Acres program, is now part of Wawayanda State Park. Additionally, world-wide recognition of the Saint John United Methodist Church of Fordville, NJ as an historic Native American Church – established as a tribal congregation, required that documentation of state recognition be submitted to the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church.  Saint John UMC is the only congregation with such a designation in the state.

12.  It supports the validity of our Tribe in addressing issues of its own history, from the educational curriculum in public schools and area colleges, to having been invited to advise on artifacts from our community held at the research center of the Smithsonian Institute.

13.  It strengthens tribal requests for an accurate accounting of our people.  Some primary and secondary schools and school districts have not kept an accurate statistical accounting of our people among their student bodies.  On occasion, these districts do not even provide a Native American/American Indian racial category on forms.  The original people of New Jersey should never be relegated to an “Other” category.

14.  It allows federal agencies to work with our tribal government. In partnership with the Tribe, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services restored grassland habitat on tribal property. Native warm-season grasses and wildflowers were seeded to 12 acres to benefit grassland-dependent migratory birds and insect pollinators in southern New Jersey.  Additionally, sweetgrass, a native plant with cultural significance to the tribe, will be planted when propagation is completed in 2002.

 15.  It authenticates our standing among the recognized tribal communities around the country and in Canada, allowing tribal citizens living out of state to be well received. 

 16.  It differentiates between historic American Indian Tribes and American Indian Enthusiast Groups.  American Indian Tribes are not “re-enactment groups” or “historical/cultural enthusiasts,” who may not have any descent from a Native tribal community.  However, without state or federal recognition, legitimate tribes of ancient origin are not offered the respect they deserve.

 Why a Reaffirmation of our State Recognition is Important to our Tribal Citizens –

1.      It grants our tribal artisans and craftsmen ability to advertise their crafts as “Native American Made,” which is strictly regulated by the federal government with heavy penalties for violations.  “Native American Made” or “American Indian Made” designations greatly increase the value of artwork and crafts because it certifies their authenticity.  The designation also allows tribal artisans and craftsmen to enter competitions and participate in exhibits restricted to citizens of state and federally recognized tribes.  The designation also allows our arts and crafts to be competitive in the Native artisan's world.

2.      It validates the music, literature or artwork as authentic, having an impact on the market value of creative works and the extent to which they are received and valued.  It also allows such creative works to be entered into restricted contests. 

3.      It allows tribal citizens to join National / Intertribal Native groups and organizations. Tribal citizenship in a state or federally recognized tribe afford the ability to join, vote and run for office. 

4.      It allows tribal citizens to establish Native American Businesses recognized by the Small Business Administration, and various national Native American business associations.

5.      It allows tribal citizens to participate in American Indian Chambers of Commerce, which often require citizenship in a federal or state tribe in order to join, run for office or vote.

6.      It allows tribal citizens to participate in “Native Only” Pow Wows and cultural events.  Some organizations and tribal nations require proof of citizenship in a state or federally recognized tribe to dance and participate in activities not open to the general public.

7.      It qualifies tribal citizens for certain educational grants and scholarships restricted to Native Americans. Non-federally recognized tribal citizens need a state recognized tribal affiliation in order to qualify for funding targeted for American Indians.

8.      It qualifies tribal citizens as eligible to apply to tribal colleges and training programs as American Indians, providing for certain privileges reserved for tribal citizens.

9.      It qualifies tribal citizens for restricted jobs with other state or federally recognized tribes. Many federal or state recognized tribes, when hiring outside of their own tribal population, prefer to hire Native Americans from other tribes for their tribal social services, land development, educational institutions and other positions.  Proof of state or federally recognized tribal citizenship is typically required.   

10.  It qualifies tribal citizens for certain health services from Indian Health Service Clinics and some tribal health services.  Some medical programs and clinics are available to those of Native ancestry who can prove they are citizens of a state or federally recognized tribe. 

11.  It allows tribal communities in other states or in Canada to organize and be recognized as legitimate bands or sub-groups.  It differentiates these bands as truly “tribal” as opposed to being merely an enthusiast group with no Native descent.

 Why a Reaffirmation of our State Recognition is Important to the State –

1.      It allows an American Indian Tribe to act as a government with powers similar to a state, accessing programming funding for its citizens that the state cannot provide because of the restricted nature of the subsidy.  Such programming infuses the state with services to its citizens who are also citizens of its recognized tribes and even those who are not tribal citizens but live in tribal communities.

2.      It acknowledges the continued presence of an indigenous tribal government, diminishing the strength of treaty claims from other tribal governments or groups from outside of the state, or unrecognized American Indian groups within the state, regarding gaming and land claims.  Our tribal law prohibits the establishment of Indian casino gaming and our tribal values promote a respect for the private property rights of our citizens and our neighbors.  The state would have a friendly partner in promoting Native interests.

3.      It allows for federal funding and programming targeting American Indian Tribes to stay within the state, benefiting New Jersey.  Without affirmative state support, such targeted initiatives will be controlled by outside entities.

4.      It stimulates the state’s economic development, especially in rural tribal areas.  As tribal economic development expands, the job market expands for both tribal and non-tribal citizens.

5.      It provides for an authoritative voice on American Indian Issues within the state to aid in guiding state policies and educating state institutions regarding both historic and modern Native concerns.

6.      It ensures that the state has representation with the national and international indigenous community.  As the National Congress of American Indians presses the federal government regarding tribal issues and the United Nations promotes the concerns of indigenous communities, New Jersey would not be left out.

7.      It bolsters a valuable partner in environmental protection as the tribe can bring “set aside” resources to bear on state environmental and preservation concerns.

8.      It aids in overturning the mistreatment of the state’s indigenous communities. With the state as a confirmed ally in uplifting it tribal communities, the legacy of suffering and persecution is confronted.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on October 01, 2009, 08:42:41 pm
As folks seem to believe that state recognised tribes are not authentic.


 Actually I do not have a problem with state recognized tribes, and do realize that some are in fact real tribes. Those that I support are historic tribes, and have documentation that they are, and often times it goes back to the days before the United States was even independent from the English.

 However there is a huge problem now days in the Southeast, which is people that have some distant ancestor they might not even be able to prove trying to form their own tribes. Often times they do this to cash in on Federal Benefits that are set aside for real tribes, and not people that just woke up and decided since they might have some Cherokee ggggggg grandmother they can't prove, they are still Indian and entitled to from a tribe with people of similar back ground.

 Most often then not, these bogus tribes being formed are being set up as Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, and Lumbee. Cherokee obviously is the people they claim to be, and it is no wonder since everyone now days claims to be a Cherokee from some ancestor they can't even prove existed.

 This problem is exacerbated by the fact that many southern states will accept these claims and are giving them state recognition. Why are the states doing this? Not because the people claiming to be (insert tribe) really are NDN or from some historic tribe, but rather the states are wanting to cash in on the funds as well.

 At this time I believe the Echota Cherokee fall into this category, and I believe their possible state recognition has been done so under the false premise that they are indeed some historic tribe. Their website had the stench of twinkie all over it, and I am convinced they are no sort of historic tribe and should have no recognition by anyone as any sort of tribal entity

 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 01, 2009, 09:20:25 pm
Quote
Cherokee obviously is the people they claim to be, and it is no wonder since everyone now days claims to be a Cherokee from some ancestor they can't even prove existed.

Even President Obama claims to be part Cherkoee. 

http://64.38.12.138/News/2008/011284.asp (http://64.38.12.138/News/2008/011284.asp)
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 01, 2009, 10:57:51 pm
I just wanted to throw something out there about the concept of being Full Blooded Cherokee in traditional Cherokee society and especially during the 1800's.  For Cherokees, not having a BQ of 4/4 did not necessarily mean that one could not be considered “full blooded Cherokee”.  The concept of race for Cherokees was brought over by Europeans.  Although there were differences amongst tribes,( Creeks, Euchee, etc), Cherokees didn’t have the concept of race before contact.  It was more about the Clan system.  When the whites  began to intermarry with the Cherokees, Cherokees would hear whites mention concepts a lot like “full blood”, “half”, etc.  They then began to associate being Full Blood Cherokee with being fluent in the language, and following Cherokee Tradional beliefs. 

So when people sometimes say that they have a “Full blood” Cherokee Grandma or Great Grandma.  It didn’t necessarily mean that their grandma had a 4/4 BQ.  It could have meant that she was Traditional Cherokees, non-Christian, and spoke the language, when racially she could have been 1/4 Cherokee. 

Skin color didn’t really matter to Cherokees.  Originally it was based on the clan system which was matrilineal.  For example, a Cherokee woman of the Wolf Clan married a white man.  To the Cherokees, the daughter of that union would be just Cherokee and of the Wolf Clan.  To whites, the girl would be a half breed.  Now that girl would be ½ racially white, and later marry a white man.  The kid would still just be Cherokee of the Wolf Clan to the Cherokees, while having a BQ of 1/4.  Now, keep this up a few more generations, and you can see why many Cherokees have low BQ’s.  In the 1800's, sometime, the Cherokee Nation changed its constitution to allow descendants of males to be Cherokee. Chief John Ross, the Chief of the Cherokee Nation during the Trail of Tears  was himself 1/8 Cherokee.

I have family on both ends of the skin color spectrum. Some dark skin, and others light skin because of intermarriage.  But to me they are all Cherokee.   

I mention this because I hear non-NDNS/non Cherokees on this site mention the BQ/skin color issue a lot and about some NDNS’s being more racially white then Indian, etc, etc, and how they live a life of privlage based on skin color, etc, etc, etc. And I’m not talking about Cherokees on this site  who don’t have cards , I”m talking about non-NDNS.   They might want to consider the fact that they may be looking at this issue from their own non NDN and more importantly non Cherokee belief system.  In other words they are filtering this issue through their own belief system.   
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 01, 2009, 11:25:23 pm
I found this from a Wikipedia site and thought I would toss it in here for discussion as it seems to be about the Echotas history. (now I think I see where the black dutch thing came from).

Quote:
Harris Toney and his family also founded and settled Toney, Alabama. Cherokee and Chickasaw Indians who refused to migrate west found refuge in the Toney Community after the Indian Treaties of the early 1800's, the native families intermarried with each other so that a distinct group emerged. This group, which became monitored by the State of Alabama, was distinguished from blacks, whites and the other mixed-race descendants in the area, Toney Cherokee Indian descendants are called the Echota Cherokee by the State of Alabama. The Echota Cherokee is recognized as an Indian Tribe by the State of Alabama. The Echota Cherokee segment of the old Cherokee Nation evolved under a section of Article 12 in the Cherokee Treaty of 1835.

Source citation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powhatan_Tribe

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on October 01, 2009, 11:49:06 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powhatan_Tribe

I don't know enough about the history of that area to judge the contents of the article myself, but as for the article in general: Information on Wikipedia is only as reliable as the sources cited, and the people writing the article. This article cites zero sources, and the main writer has a username that shows a significant probability of Conflict of Interest. If they can cite it to solid, verifiable, reliable sources, it's another story. But right now it's no more reliable (or unreliable) than an opinion piece or blog post by an anonymous individual.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 02, 2009, 01:20:56 am
Quote
BW,
Thanks for the links,,,,Way cool,,,  that was a gold mine for my family tree research. I have found 3 full families and about 4 individual people on those rolls. You wouldn't happen to have a link to the Henderson rolls would you? I can't seem to find a list of names for it like this roll you posted has?

I couldn't find the Henderson roll online.  Thats the roll taken of Cherokees who were to be removed to Oklahoma.  

I think you can may be able to get copies from the National Archives.  Here's a good site for people researching their NDN ancestry
http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/heritage/native-american/ancestor-search.html (http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/heritage/native-american/ancestor-search.html)
And I beleive you can get copies of of the Henderson Roll here for a fee.
http://www.cherokeeroots.com/ (http://www.cherokeeroots.com/)
And another good site for Cherokee geneology.
http://www.cherokeeheritage.org/cherokeeheritage/genealogy.html (http://www.cherokeeheritage.org/cherokeeheritage/genealogy.html)
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 02, 2009, 01:34:08 am
The first major census of Cherokees living in North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee taken by the Federal government was compiled from June-December, 1835 and is generally called the Henderson Roll. The roll, which only lists the name of the head of each family,and an index to it have been reproduced as National Archives Microfilm Publication T496.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: LittleOldMan on October 02, 2009, 02:53:30 am
FYI.  Toney Al. is located northwest of Huntsville Al. and approximately seven to ten miles south of the Tenn. State Line.  It is also fifteen to twenty miles northwest of the intersection of US 231 and the Tenn River adjacent to  Ditto's Landing a major jumping off place for the "Trail of Tears".  It is very conceivable that this tale could have some truth in it. Location would be reasonable and that side of the river was Cherokee land.  I will keep this in mind as research continues.  I will be working the annual Native American Festival held each year at Mound State Park Moundville Al. 10/7,8,9,10.  down close to Tuscaloosa.  This is a four day event geared to educational purposes.  Alabama indigenous Tribes are spotlighted.  Demo's on pottery,flint  knapping, stick ball (lacross),and other aspects of the history and lives of the early people of Al. Last year we were getting as many as 45 busloads of kids each day from all over the state.  Wish me luck I sometimes wonder if I am getting to old for this? "LittleOldMan"
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 02, 2009, 09:15:11 am
FYI.  Toney Al. is located northwest of Huntsville Al. and approximately seven to ten miles south of the Tenn. State Line.  It is also fifteen to twenty miles northwest of the intersection of US 231 and the Tenn River adjacent to  Ditto's Landing a major jumping off place for the "Trail of Tears".  It is very conceivable that this tale could have some truth in it. Location would be reasonable and that side of the river was Cherokee land.  I will keep this in mind as research continues.  I will be working the annual Native American Festival held each year at Mound State Park Moundville Al. 10/7,8,9,10.  down close to Tuscaloosa.  This is a four day event geared to educational purposes.  Alabama indigenous Tribes are spotlighted.  Demo's on pottery,flint  knapping, stick ball (lacross),and other aspects of the history and lives of the early people of Al. Last year we were getting as many as 45 busloads of kids each day from all over the state.  Wish me luck I sometimes wonder if I am getting to old for this? "LittleOldMan"

45 buss loads of screaming little nippers per day,
Well then your going to need it ,,,, GOOD LUCK.

I wanted to go there this year, but I already burned up all of my vacation days.
Perhaps you can glean a lot of info about this Tribe while your there.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on October 02, 2009, 11:29:05 pm
Perhaps you can glean a lot of info about this Tribe while your there.

Doesn't look like a tribe. It appears this guy was just talking about his family, and making a variety of very odd claims. People from the area, including someone who says they're from the Toney family, have said almost none of the info in that article, aside from the fact there's a cemetery, is credible.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: LittleOldMan on October 03, 2009, 02:41:08 am
Perhaps I was not clear the Native American Festival is an annual one put on by the Mound State Park at Moundville, Al. It highlights all the historic Tribes from this area from the Archaic through to the removal.  It is billed as an educational experience and geared mostly for grades 1 through 9.  There will be approximately 20 to 30 vendors and about the same amount of demos from grinding corn to making pots over an open fire.  It is not set up as a powwow would be.  That is no sacred circle etc. There will be story telling and flute playing.  Usually Billy Whitefox is there, NAMBI winner couple of years ago.    "LOM"   
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 03, 2009, 11:29:30 am
My bad,,, I looked at the location and glanced at the dates.  The event I was thinking that you were going to is on the 16th, 17th and 18th the weekend AFTER your visit there.
So sorry.  :-[
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 08, 2009, 02:17:29 pm
I was searching the web for info on this "Black Dutch" thing and how it ties into the Echota Tribe and found this:

On the Museum wall of The Oakville Mounds Park & Museum" in Moulton, Alabama:  

"Before the Indian Removal Act in 1830, many of Lawrence County's Cherokee people were already mixed with white settlers and stayed in the country of the Warrior Mountains. They denied their ancestry and basically lived much of their lives in fear of being sent West. Full bloods claimed to be Black Irish or Black Dutch, thus denying their rightful Indian blood. After being fully assimilated into the general population years later, these Irish Cherokee mixed blood descendants, began reclaiming their Indian heritage in the land of the Warrior Mountains, Lawrence County, Alabama. During the 1900 U.S. Census only 78 people claimed their Indian heritage. In 1990, more than 2000 individuals claimed Indian descent. Today more than 4000 citizens are proud to claim their Indian heritage and are members of the Echota Cherokee's tribe."


Source citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Dutch#cite_note-crane-5


I don't know if this Oakville Mounds Park & Museum" in Moulton, Alabama is or is not the same place that LOM is going. I now think that they are different places. He (LOM) said that he going to the Mound State Park at Moundville, Al.

I think I first misunderstood that these two places were the same place.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: taraverti on October 08, 2009, 02:22:48 pm
I always thought that Black Dutch referred to people of mixed ancestry, although I suppose there is no reason why full-bloods could not have called themselves Black Dutch. Hard to think anyone would have bought it though.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 08, 2009, 02:28:44 pm
It's been a very interesting leg of my research.
By all means go read the wiki article on this and /or other links about this "Black Dutch" issue.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: taraverti on October 08, 2009, 03:07:48 pm
I've researched it before. It's part of my family history too. From several different directions.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Moma_porcupine on October 08, 2009, 03:40:12 pm
I have a friend who's grandpa was born in Holland and he was said to be "Black Dutch". Supposedly he looks like he may have had African ancestry. So I believe this can refer to people descended from a number of racial groups besides American Indian...

A personal story from an anonoymous person shouldn't carry a lot of wieght, but I think people should do some research before assuming "Black Dutch" or "Black Irish" means mixed with NDN.

Reply #71 on: September 29, 2009,
   
Quote

Quote
Quote from: BlackWolf


 Many NDNS and/or their families for economic and/or relocation and other reasons were forced to leave their respective communities in the not to distant past.  I would never say that these people and their childeren weren't NDN.  I would just say that they were Indians who are disconnected both spiritually and culturally from their Tribe.  Big difference.

Paul1234
So just what is that "Big Difference"?
 that it happened in 1938 instead of 1838? Grin

The difference seems really obvious ...... the people who formed a "new" tribe in 1838, came directly from the old tribe that existed in 1837- 1830. There was no 3 or 4 generations of living outside of a culturally strong Cherokee community.

How I see things, those 3 or 4 generations are a really big difference Paul. 
Paul quoting from an Alabama museum...
Quote
many of Lawrence County's Cherokee people were already mixed with white settlers

Quote
After being fully assimilated into the general population years later, these Irish Cherokee mixed blood descendants, began reclaiming their Indian heritage

Paul

Reading what you write makes me wonder about how you see things.

I see where your main point seems to be to repeatedly try to point out that there was some individuals who had Cherokee ancestry who left descendents who aren't being allowed to enroll in any of the 3 federally recognized Cherokee Nations.  This is a straw man argument . We all agree these individuals do exist. That isn't the point of contention.

What does seem to be the point of contention is if many generations have passed since these people were recognized as a visible community having a collective identity as Cherokee, should these individuals should be able to get together with other descendents and declare themselves a tribe?
   
1.Do you see any difference between a few individuals who have some Native descent, who live in a community with a few other families ( possibly cousins ) who also have some Native descent , but these families have been fully assimilated into the non native community for generations, and a tribe which has maintained it's collective cultural and political identity as visibly and demonstrably distinct from the surrounding non native population?

2. If a family has intermarried and has passed as non native for more than two generations , in other words, has been fully assimilated into the surrounding non native community, and these families can prove they have some Cherokee ancestry , do you believe these families should be able to get together with other people of some distant Cherokee ancestry and declare themselves a sovriegn Nation?

3. If you believe Cherokee descendents should under some conditions be able to  form a new tribe,  or reform an old one, and they shouldn't other times , could you explain where you personally would draw the line ?


Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 08, 2009, 05:16:47 pm


Paul

Reading what you write makes me wonder about how you see things.

I see where your main point seems to be to repeatedly try to point out that there was some individuals who had Cherokee ancestry who left descendents who aren't being allowed to enroll in any of the 3 federally recognized Cherokee Nations.  This is a straw man argument . We all agree these individuals do exist. That isn't the point of contention.

What does seem to be the point of contention is if many generations have passed since these people were recognized as a visible community having a collective identity as Cherokee, should these individuals should be able to get together with other descendents and declare themselves a tribe?
   
1.Do you see any difference between a few individuals who have some Native descent, who live in a community with a few other families ( possibly cousins ) who also have some Native descent , but these families have been fully assimilated into the non native community for generations, and a tribe which has maintained it's collective cultural and political identity as visibly and demonstrably distinct from the surrounding non native population?

2. If a family has intermarried and has passed as non native for more than two generations , in other words, has been fully assimilated into the surrounding non native community, and these families can prove they have some Cherokee ancestry , do you believe these families should be able to get together with other people of some distant Cherokee ancestry and declare themselves a sovriegn Nation?

3. If you believe Cherokee descendents should under some conditions be able to  form a new tribe,  or reform an old one, and they shouldn't other times , could you explain where you personally would draw the line ?


Well first of all,, I get damned confused as to how I see things,,,

To try (poorly) to address what seems to be the point of contention:
<if many generations have passed since these people were recognized as a visible community having a collective identity as Cherokee...>

I question just who needed to recognize them. (others or themselves).
If it is themselves, and they just didn't talk about it from fear. Then Perhaps when the times changed to where it is safe then it maybe OK. If they always existed as a Tribe no matter how large or small  (but still didn't talk about it to outsiders) then of course they should have the right to reform. And /or change their name. After all the CNO changed their name from "The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma" to "The Cherokee Nation" not to long ago.

Your point #1:
Yes of course I see that. I haven't decided (read that as,, been convinced)  just which of these 2 choices the Echota's fall under.

Your point #2:
I think you are talking about forming a NEW Tribe.
If this is the case then my answer is NO, They should not.
But I also question the "Paper Indians" in the CNO or any other fed Tribe. I understand that some say that they gave up their rights when they didn't move to I.T. but why doesn't that still apply to those who live "At Large" now?

Your point #3:
Where I personally would draw the line ?
That's a tough one,
Jokingly I would have to say if they only have a P.O. Box for tribal land...
 then not just NO but, Hell NO...

I think if the Tribe in question has good documentation of their long standing history (ie: the Lumbee) Then of course. In this discussion of the Echotas I was hoping that they were one such Tribe. At this point I'm not sure. I do see both sides of the discussion.

On the one hand it looks like they fall under the points you made under point #2.

On the other hand if their documentation were to show that they have been a Tribe for,, oh let's just say the past 200 years (as is the requirement for documentation in Alabama) And they choose to change their name (to The Echota Tribe of Ala.)  and come out into the public eye after only 2 or 3 generations of hiding out now that it is safe, Then perhaps this is OK. 

Again I would point out that they (the Echotas) have already done this many years ago when they got State recognition some 40ish years ago. So are we questioning their their legitimacy, linage, their sovereignty or the State of Alabama's wisdom?

I personally think that a State government knows better than I do. I also think that if a State (especially one that has laws as tough as Ala.) recognizes a Tribe, that the Fed's should also recognize them, (benefits is a whole other discussion). Along with the Fed. recognized Tribes, as a kinship perhaps. sorta like the relationship between the Eastern Band and the CNO. I don't think that this Echota Tribe wants anything from the CNO, but it would be nice if they could call each other "Brother". But this is just MY thoughts, I speak for no one except myself.



Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Diana on October 08, 2009, 05:20:56 pm
" Full bloods claimed to be Black Irish ", As a Chatholic, being raised in the Chatholic faith and still a practicing Chatholic I can safely say that the term Black Irish means a Protestant Irish person. And no I'm not Irish, but have been told as a child by Nuns and other Chatholics alike what the term means.

I think this is another case of wannabe's taking a terminology and misconstruing it's meaning to fit their own agenda. This should be corrected in Wikipedia.


Lim Lemtsh


Diana
 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 08, 2009, 05:26:19 pm
" Full bloods claimed to be Black Irish ", As a Chatholic, being raised in the Chatholic faith and still a practicing Chatholic I can safely say that the term Black Irish means a Protestant Irish person. And no I'm not Irish, but have been told as a child by Nuns and other Chatholics alike what the term means.

I think this is another case of wannabe's taking a terminology and misconstruing it's meaning to fit their own agenda. This should be corrected in Wikipedia.


Lim Lemtsh




Diana
 


I have to admit that I had never heard of the term  "Black Irish"  before today.
Edit: and neither has my wife and she IS Irish.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Moma_porcupine on October 08, 2009, 05:53:07 pm
Paul
Quote
If they always existed as a Tribe no matter how large or small  (but still didn't talk about it to outsiders) then of course they should have the right to reform.

Paul
Quote
On the other hand if their documentation were to show that they have been a Tribe for,, oh let's just say the past 200 years (as is the requirement for documentation in Alabama) And they choose to change their name (to The Echota Tribe of Ala.)  and come out into the public eye after only 2 or 3 generations of hiding out now that it is safe, Then perhaps this is OK.

It seems according to the people calling themselves Echota Cherokee , they have not been a tribe for 3 or 4 generations ... 


http://aiac.state.al.us/tribes_EchotaCherokee.aspx

Quote
The Echota Cherokee Tribe
Rising from the Ashes
The members of the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama are the descendants of those Indian people who escaped the infamous “Trail of Tears” by hiding out in the mountainous backwoods and lowlands of the Southeast. Others fled from the march after it began and others simply walked away and came home after reaching Indian Territory. They kept to themselves, did not speak the language and did not teach it to their children for fear the child might speak it in the presence of someone who would learn the secret of their ancestry. If this happened, they could immediately be taken into custody and sent to Indian Territory in the west. Everything they owned could be given away by the State.

As much as possible our people assimilated into the white populace and claimed to be “Black Dutch” or some other type of European to explain their slightly darker color. Since nearly all work was done outdoors, most people had a tan anyway. However, most of us remember stories of our family members who always wore large straw hats and long sleeves in the summer because they did not want to become any darker than they already were.

During the early gatherings of our people, old stories or “legends” were told, crafts were demonstrated, and those who still knew a few words of the Cherokee language shared it with all. We struggled then and struggle now to preserve our history and culture. Everyone brought “covered dishes” to those gatherings and we enjoyed the pleasure of potluck dinners. It was wonderful to fellowship with others who shared the common bond. Friendships that were developed early on have lasted to this day.

Soon it was realized that we should have a “name” and become a more formalized group. At a meeting in Opelika, Alabama on March 16, 1980 the name, “ECHOTA” was chosen. The Phoenix was chosen as our symbol since we were rising from the ashes of our burned villages and forced removal, to join and reclaim that which was almost lost to us.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070404012211/www.echotacherokeetribe.homestead.com/Joe.html
Joe Two Eagles
Quote
Charlotte Stewart Hallmark has worked diligently for the Echota Cherokees since before we even had a name. I doubt very seriously if there would even be a tribe if she had not taken the high road and persevered after I retired from tribal activity because of health conditions.

So these people seem to be saying their "early gatherings" as a tribe was in the 1980's and involved people alive today. They had no name for themselves, no collective history since they went into hiding as individual families, and their identity as a "tribe" was so fragile it depended on the perserverence of one individual. 

Paul
Quote
I personally think that a State government knows better than I do. I also think that if a State (especially one that has laws as tough as Ala.) recognizes a Tribe, that the Fed's should also recognize them, (benefits is a whole other discussion)

I guess I have to wonder how it is that the State of Alabama sounds like it expects tribes to show they had a continuous existence as a tribe - when the Echota don't seem to have this ...


Reply #52
LittleOldMan
Quote
This is what the Al. law states about this matter of qualifications for State Tribes

Quote
(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.

In yet the Echota Cherokee seem to be very clearly saying they did not have a continuos existence as a tribal entity .

Based on this, it does seem that what people have repeatedly said about States often having wishy washy recognition standards , may be correct.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on October 08, 2009, 06:43:06 pm
These so called "black Dutch" are what I call "reluctant mulattoes". These are people who have significant African ancestry but refuse to admit it because of their own racial prejudice. I have been in a yahoogroup called the "black Dutch", the members are really into their genealogical research to try to prove that they have Indian rather than African blood. In some ways their fear of black ancestry drives them to call themselves Indians, just like to so called "black Indians" fear of their own white ancestry drives them to claim Indian ancestry. I've seen these so called "black Dutch" claiming to be some lost Mideastern people, even claiming the same nonsense as the Nuwaubians, but claiming that their "Moorish" ancestors were actually white.
The fact is that racial mixture is a fact of all slave societies. In Latin America which had a much larger indigenous population than the states and a small colonial Spanish/Portuguese population, race mixing was inevitable. The result is that many countries including Mexico and all of Central America are majority Mestizo. While in the Caribbean the majority are mulattoes i.e. Cuba, Domincan Republic and Puerto Rico.
I really wish that people could be honest about their roots, even if their ancestors weren't. I believe that much when people are able to accept who they are as being more important than who their ancestors were this will cease to be a problem. I long ago accepted that being triracial meant that I have all races in me, and none define me. I define myself, not the my ancestors.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on October 08, 2009, 06:45:09 pm
In Gaelic usage, "Black Irish" has nothing to do with being mixed-race or one's religion.

In Ireland, it traditionally means an Irish person who has dark hair and eyes, though some also apply it to those with lighter eyes. This usage has continued in the diaspora among those who are still culturally Irish and Scottish.

The WP article is not too bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Irish, and touches on how language does evolve over time and these things can become more complex... but a small number of people misusing a term doesn't change the historical/majority usage.

Irish and Scottish Gaelic nicknames often use hair color as a prominent descriptor, and while the literal translation of a nickname like "Seán Dubh" is "Black John", and someone with no Gaelic might think it means Seán/John is what we think of as a Person of Color, it really only means the guy has dark hair (and carries the assumption he's a white (Irish) guy with dark hair).  

A film that touches on this is The Secret of Roan Inish, where the family lore is that "the dark ones" in the family are descended from the Selkies (the shape-changing seal people).

As a Chatholic, being raised in the Chatholic faith and still a practicing Chatholic I can safely say that the term Black Irish means a Protestant Irish person. And no I'm not Irish, but have been told as a child by Nuns and other Chatholics alike what the term means.

Hi Diana, may I ask where and when you heard this? I am an American of predominantly Irish and Scottish descent, the usual product of the famines and the clearances. I grew up in a mixed Catholic/Protestant diasporic community in Northern Illinois, and as a young adult lived in Irish immigrant communities in Boston and Chicago. While some Irish people would use "Black" as a slur, and I guess some Catholics might say it about Protestants (and vice versa) because of this, I don't recall anyone ever saying "Black Irish" simply meant Protestants.

While among the Irish "Black Irish" does not mean mixed-race, it is a misconception I've heard multiple times in America. The English in particular compared the Irish to Africans, and Cromwell enslaved them along with the Africans in the Caribbean, so there were racist caricatures drawn of Irish people where they have more African features. This was done by people who were oppressing the Irish as well as People of Color. Google "Anti-Irish racism" for some of that. Slán.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 08, 2009, 07:01:14 pm
Paul
Quote
If they always existed as a Tribe no matter how large or small  (but still didn't talk about it to outsiders) then of course they should have the right to reform.

Paul
Quote
On the other hand if their documentation were to show that they have been a Tribe for,, oh let's just say the past 200 years (as is the requirement for documentation in Alabama) And they choose to change their name (to The Echota Tribe of Ala.)  and come out into the public eye after only 2 or 3 generations of hiding out now that it is safe, Then perhaps this is OK.

It seems according to the people calling themselves Echota Cherokee , they have not been a tribe for 3 or 4 generations ...  


http://aiac.state.al.us/tribes_EchotaCherokee.aspx

Quote
The Echota Cherokee Tribe
Rising from the Ashes
The members of the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama are the descendants of those Indian people who escaped the infamous “Trail of Tears” by hiding out in the mountainous backwoods and lowlands of the Southeast. Others fled from the march after it began and others simply walked away and came home after reaching Indian Territory. They kept to themselves, did not speak the language and did not teach it to their children for fear the child might speak it in the presence of someone who would learn the secret of their ancestry. If this happened, they could immediately be taken into custody and sent to Indian Territory in the west. Everything they owned could be given away by the State.

As much as possible our people assimilated into the white populace and claimed to be “Black Dutch” or some other type of European to explain their slightly darker color. Since nearly all work was done outdoors, most people had a tan anyway. However, most of us remember stories of our family members who always wore large straw hats and long sleeves in the summer because they did not want to become any darker than they already were.

During the early gatherings of our people, old stories or “legends” were told, crafts were demonstrated, and those who still knew a few words of the Cherokee language shared it with all. We struggled then and struggle now to preserve our history and culture. Everyone brought “covered dishes” to those gatherings and we enjoyed the pleasure of potluck dinners. It was wonderful to fellowship with others who shared the common bond. Friendships that were developed early on have lasted to this day.

Soon it was realized that we should have a “name” and become a more formalized group. At a meeting in Opelika, Alabama on March 16, 1980 the name, “ECHOTA” was chosen. The Phoenix was chosen as our symbol since we were rising from the ashes of our burned villages and forced removal, to join and reclaim that which was almost lost to us.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070404012211/www.echotacherokeetribe.homestead.com/Joe.html
Joe Two Eagles
Quote
Charlotte Stewart Hallmark has worked diligently for the Echota Cherokees since before we even had a name. I doubt very seriously if there would even be a tribe if she had not taken the high road and persevered after I retired from tribal activity because of health conditions.

So these people seem to be saying their "early gatherings" as a tribe was in the 1980's and involved people alive today. They had no name for themselves, no collective history since they went into hiding as individual families, and their identity as a "tribe" was so fragile it depended on the perserverence of one individual.  

Paul
Quote
I personally think that a State government knows better than I do. I also think that if a State (especially one that has laws as tough as Ala.) recognizes a Tribe, that the Fed's should also recognize them, (benefits is a whole other discussion)

I guess I have to wonder how it is that the State of Alabama sounds like it expects tribes to show they had a continuous existence as a tribe - when the Echota don't seem to have this ...


Reply #52
LittleOldMan
Quote
This is what the Al. law states about this matter of qualifications for State Tribes

Quote
(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.

In yet the Echota Cherokee seem to be very clearly saying they did not have a continuos existence as a tribal entity .

Based on this, it does seem that what people have repeatedly said about States often having wishy washy recognition standards , may be correct.



So when I ask if we are questioning their their legitimacy, linage, their sovereignty or the State of Alabama's wisdom that your answer is both their linage and the State of Alabama's wisdom.

I don't know for sure but, I would guess that they had to submit documentation of their past 200 years. If this documentation is false or incorrect then it would seem that the State of Ala. wasn't so wise after all. So it seems to come down to their documentation.

Given that the State of Ala. believes their documentation and you do not. I will eagerly (edit: and respectfully)  await your proof that they are not who they say they are.

I guess I tend to lean to thinking that in the past 40ish years that if they were not who they say they are that some one would have come up with something before now but, I'm open, let's see what you come up with.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 08, 2009, 08:13:25 pm

Quote
I think you are talking about forming a NEW Tribe.
If this is the case then my answer is NO, They should not.
But I also question the "Paper Indians" in the CNO or any other fed Tribe. I understand that some say that they gave up their rights when they didn't move to I.T. but why doesn't that still apply to those who live "At Large" now?

Paul, I don't know what to make of this.  You say you question the "paper indians".  I assume you mean enrolled members of Federally Recognized Tribes like the Cherokee Nation and other tribes who were born and rasied outside of their communities or reservations.  I do agree that many are disconncted from their Tribe and culture. 
And it was the fairly recent past that their family left in many cases. 
I'll use the case of what happened during the Dust Bowl when almost half of the Cherkoee Nation left for California and a few other states.  ( Which is where most AT-Large Cherokees are).  In that case, they left a soverign Nation who still recognzies their decendants.  I guess this gets into the issue of having a residenty requirement for enfollment.  I have a friend who is an enrolled member of the Creek Nation who was complety born and raised outside of a Creek community in Oklahoma.  His kids will also be enrolled, (making them the 2nd generation) born and raised outside of Oklahoma. 

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Moma_porcupine on October 08, 2009, 08:17:02 pm
Quote
So when I ask if we are questioning their their legitimacy, linage, their sovereignty or the State of Alabama's wisdom that your answer is both their linage and the State of Alabama's wisdom.

No I never questioned any individuals lineage. I pointed out where the so called Echota Cherokee repeatedly appear to say they did not maintain their identity as a tribe. 

Quote
Given that the State of Ala. believes their documentation and you do not. I will eagerly (edit: and respectfully)  await your proof that they are not who they say they are.

I didn't say i believed or disbelieved "their documentation". I haven't even seen any references to any documentation and see no reason to assume this even exists much less have an opinion on what it means.

People hiding in swamps , keeping to themselves and  doing their best to blend in and assimilate with the non native community don't usually leave much in the way of documentation.

What I pointed out is that all of what is being claimed seems to contain some inconsistencies which appear impossible - .

Which is the same thing people have been doing here for the past 9 pages. What is becoming increasingly obvious is you really really really really don't want to notice where all the various claims / stories / and explanations aren't fitting with each other, or what would normally be expected if the claims these desendents had maintained a tribal identity were true.

And Paul , it is the responsibility of the groups making these claims ( and their supporters) to provide publicly accessible proof they are legit - not the other way around. 

Proving something that doesn't exist is next to impossible. The thread arguing with people who believe Carlos Castenda are a good example of this. There is always a possible explaination for why no evidence or proof can be found ...

If you really want to know the truth, why not write the State of Alabama and ask them what they accepted as proof the Echota maintained a tribal identity .

I think we all would be interested to hear the response.

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 08, 2009, 08:22:24 pm
But my question is if these people are paper NDNS. Then how do you see members of the Echota Tribe?  The people you call paper NDNS are recognzied by their Tribal Goverments. In the case of the Echota members.  Not only are they not recognized by any Tribal goverment, they have been away from a Cherokee communitiy for over 200 years ( as opposed to the recent past of the enrolled Cherokees).  And it seems your calling certain NDNS paper indians becaue of their disconnection from their Tribal Communities.  So what would that make members of the Echota Tribe?  You can't even say the Echotas are paper NDNS if no Tribal Goverment recognizes them.  So if paper NDNS are only NDNS on paper, then what would the Echotas be?  In other words it seems your saying, that without a card, paper NDNS wouldnt' be NDNS.  So then, what would that make the Echotas with neither a Tribal Goveremnt, nor any visibel culture or heritage to fall back on other then family legends of Cherokee ancestry.  So are the Echotas NDNS in your mind?  
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 08, 2009, 08:26:11 pm


And Paul , it is the responsibility of the groups making these claims ( and their supporters) to provide publicly accessible proof they are legit - not the other way around.  

Proving something that doesn't exist is next to impossible. The thread arguing with people who believe Carlos Castenda are a good example of this. There is always a possible explaination for why no evidence or proof can be found ...

If you really want to know the truth, why not write the State of Alabama and ask them what they accepted as proof the Echota maintained a tribal identity .

I think we all would be interested to hear the response.



Not a bad Idea, Why not, I have nothing but time to loose.  

Edit:
Here is a copy of my question to the ACIA.

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you asking for information on the Echota Tribe of Alabama. It is my understanding that in order for a Tribe to be State certified that they have to provide evidence 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. Would it be possible to find this evidence for the Echota Tribe? or could you point me to where I could find this?

 

Thank You
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 08, 2009, 08:41:08 pm
 
 ........ So are the Echotas NDNS in your mind?  


Sorry to cut your post down to the above quote but, I simply can't answer you, I don't know. I kinda think so.
You say that they don't have a Tribal Government. But I think that they do, albeit a very screwed up one. Moma_porcupine said "And Paul , it is the responsibility of the groups making these claims ( and their supporters) to provide publicly accessible proof they are legit - not the other way around".  

I do think this is true. but I also think that this had to have already been done in order for them to have state recognition. So I guess it's a matter of finding it. But I do know that even if I found what ever they used as documentation it would be picked apart. So I don't know.... Does one accept a State Tribe or not? I already know how most people would answer that question.

Edit:
45 C.F.R. §96.44(b):

    The terms "Indian tribe" and "tribal organization" as used in the Reconciliation Act have the same meaning given such terms in section 4(b) and 4(c) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b). The terms also include organized groups of Indians that the State in which they reside has determined are Indian tribes. An organized group of Indians is eligible for direct funding based on State recognition if the State has expressly determined that the group is an Indian tribe. In addition, the statement of the State's chief executive officer verifying that a tribe is recognized by that State will also be sufficient to verify State recognition for the purpose of direct funding.
  


OK,,, at this point I think I have decided that the Echotas are a real Tribe based on the above cited law. In as much as the Fed. Gov. gives the States the right to determine their status. Along with all of the hoops that they had to jump through to get that State recognition.
Even the story that LOM gave in post # 46 said that a Judge recognized their sovereignty when he stepped back from the case with a statement along these lines. " You have your own government you fix it your selves"

Unless of course an answer to my question to the ACIA says different.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on October 08, 2009, 09:16:34 pm
If you are suggesting that a well known racist Dawes had the final say on who is and who isn't an Indian, I simply can't accept that. Don't you believe that some folks were left off the rolls because they had more black ancestry than white or Indian. Dawes was a product of his times, and hating former slaves was something he shared with the former Cherokee masters, was part of those time.
The fact that the CNO held black slaves meant that they shared his prejudices. So now you have a combination of a white racist Dawes representing a white racist government, following the "lead" of former slave owners and traitors to the Union. Really and you are going to suggest that racism wasn't a motive. You should be black for a day!
As I have said, I joined the Echota out of respect for my grandmother. I don't identify with them, because I believe that many hold racist views, like their non Indian neighbours. Having seen the uproar over the freedmen, I am glad that I don't identify with the CNO. Having seen the vile racism coming from the CNO and white racists with CNO membership like Mike Graham, who makes the KKK look like liberals. I don't want or need to identify with a group of mostly white people who claim to be Indian because a white racist put their ancestors names on a list.
I am a historian and an anti racist activist, I have done my research. Dawes et al believed that as long as those Indians who had power were more white than Indians that Indians would soon disappear. The CNO is a good example of just how accurate he was. I have no doubt that there are far more Indians than those enrolled in federal tribes.
Believe me if any other ethnic group had to prove what their long lost ancestors were to be citizens of the US almost everyone would be an illegal immigrant...
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 08, 2009, 11:08:35 pm
Quote
If you are suggesting that a well known racist Dawes had the final say on who is and who isn't an Indian, I simply can't accept that.

Whlie I do agree that Dawes may not have been 100 percent accurate, I would contest that it was very very accurate in regards to Cherokee blood.  There were a number of White intruders who may have tried to get on the rolls.  But, Also a lot of applicants were denied. I can also think of a number of cases of the Tribal Rolls from other Federally Recognized Tribes that had whites trying to pass for NDN.     

Quote
Don't you believe that some folks were left off the rolls because they had more black ancestry than white or Indian.

I haven't researched this so much.  But I beleive your right.  Its unfortunate, but it happened.  Many Freedmen were most likely denied to be enrolled as Cherokee by blood.    The problem now is its hard to prove anything over a hundred years later. Freedmen who may have Cherokee blood are now in the same situation as a great number of people in the South East. 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 08, 2009, 11:17:09 pm
Quote
The fact that the CNO held black slaves meant that they shared his prejudices.


Actually it was a minorty of mixed blood Cherokees who took on the habits and customs of their white counterparts.  Not the majority of the Tribe.

Quote
So now you have a combination of a white racist Dawes representing a white racist government, following the "lead" of former slave owners and traitors to the Union.

You must not know much about politics in the Cherokee Nation during the Civil War.  For many Cherkoees, it was more about how the Tribe as a whole would make out, and under which side they would benefit most under.  Don't forget that the "Union" you mention is the same "Union" that drove the entire Cherokee Nation out of its homeland in 1838-1839 and forcibly removed the whole Tribe to Indian Territory.  I don't see how you can call the factions of the Cherokee Nation that sided with the South "Traders" to the Union.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 08, 2009, 11:23:16 pm
Quote
Believe me if any other ethnic group had to prove what their long lost ancestors were to be citizens of the US almost everyone would be an illegal immigrant...

There is a difference with being racially and culturally NDN with being an enrolled member of a Federally Recognized Tribe.  Nobody is saying that NDNS that can't prove their heritage can't celebrate it and be proud of it.  Of course they can.

But as far as nations go, I'd like to see you enter the United States without a US passport.  Thats why we have to prove we are US citizens, because we are Citiziens of a Soverign Nation.  Same goes for NDNs who are citizesn of a Soverign Nations.  And thats what our cards are all about.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 09, 2009, 12:01:06 am
I'd like to see you enter the United States without a US passport. 


OK I just want to be funny here... If ya wanna see that just go to the Tex/Mex border at 2:00 am and watch,,,,,,  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 09, 2009, 12:07:07 am
  Nobody is saying that NDNS that can't prove their heritage can't celebrate it and be proud of it.  Of course they can.

I like what LOM said at the start of this thread about this but I would take it a bit further..
If the CNO were to have 2 classifications that would solve most of the problem. one for citizenship and one for membership. Sure there would be a lot of bugs to work out. but a web presents in combination with more satellite offices would go a long way. And in fact they may be slowly going in this direction. 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 09, 2009, 12:44:05 am
 
 ........ So are the Echotas NDNS in your mind?  


Sorry to cut your post down to the above quote but, I simply can't answer you, I don't know. I kinda think so.
You say that they don't have a Tribal Government. But I think that they do, albeit a very screwed up one. Moma_porcupine said "And Paul , it is the responsibility of the groups making these claims ( and their supporters) to provide publicly accessible proof they are legit - not the other way around".  

I do think this is true. but I also think that this had to have already been done in order for them to have state recognition. So I guess it's a matter of finding it. But I do know that even if I found what ever they used as documentation it would be picked apart. So I don't know.... Does one accept a State Tribe or not? I already know how most people would answer that question.

Edit:
42 U.S.C. § 9801 et.seq. Section 674 of the act defines tribes as:

    (5) The terms "Indian tribe" and "tribal organization" mean those tribes, bands, or other organized groups of Indians recognized in the State in which they reside or considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian tribe or an Indian organization for any purpose.

45 C.F.R. §96.44(b):

    The terms "Indian tribe" and "tribal organization" as used in the Reconciliation Act have the same meaning given such terms in section 4(b) and 4(c) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b). The terms also include organized groups of Indians that the State in which they reside has determined are Indian tribes. An organized group of Indians is eligible for direct funding based on State recognition if the State has expressly determined that the group is an Indian tribe. In addition, the statement of the State's chief executive officer verifying that a tribe is recognized by that State will also be sufficient to verify State recognition for the purpose of direct funding.
  


OK,,, at this point I think I have decided that the Echotas are a real Tribe based on the above cited law. In as much as the Fed. Gov. gives the States the right to determine their status. Along with all of the hoops that they had to jump through to get that State recognition.
Even the story that LOM gave in post # 46 said that a Judge recognized their sovereignty when he stepped back from the case with a statement along these lines. " You have your own government you fix it your selves"

Unless of course an answer to my question to the ACIA says different.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 09, 2009, 01:15:28 am
I think what it means to be a Tribe has been overlooked here.  The Federal Government recognizes Tribal Governments on a Government to Government relationship.  The US Constitution states that only Congress has power over Indian Affairs for good reason.  Many bogus State Recognized Tribes have applied and been denied Federal Recognition for good reason. 

Here is the testimony of Principle Chief Leon Jones of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and Tribal Council Chairman Dan McCoy of the EB, presented to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the United States Senate on May 24th, 2000.  A good case is made as to why certain groups seeking Federal Recognition are not Indian Tribes by even the most liberal definition. 

http://indian.senate.gov/2000hrgs/s611_0524/jones.pdf (http://indian.senate.gov/2000hrgs/s611_0524/jones.pdf)
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on October 09, 2009, 01:25:18 am
I think what it means to be a Tribe has been overlooked here.  The Federal Government recognizes Tribal Governments on a Government to Government relationship.  The US Constitution states that only Congress has power over Indian Affairs for good reason.  Many bogus State Recognized Tribes have applied and been denied Federal Recognition for good reason. 

Here is the testimony of Principle Chief Leon Jones of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and Tribal Council Chairman Dan McCoy of the EB, presented to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the United States Senate on May 24th, 2000.  A good case is made as to why certain groups seeking Federal Recognition are not Indian Tribes by even the most liberal definition. 

http://indian.senate.gov/2000hrgs/s611_0524/jones.pdf (http://indian.senate.gov/2000hrgs/s611_0524/jones.pdf)

 Exactly!

 One of the criteria for recognition is for a particular group to prove they  are self governing and have been since historic times. This would of course be an indicator that they are an historic tribe.

 In the case of the Echota Cherokee, I am betting there is no such thing and never has been until they created some bogus tribal council in order to achieve state recognition.

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: bls926 on October 09, 2009, 03:52:29 am
  Nobody is saying that NDNS that can't prove their heritage can't celebrate it and be proud of it.  Of course they can.

I like what LOM said at the start of this thread about this but I would take it a bit further..
If the CNO were to have 2 classifications that would solve most of the problem. one for citizenship and one for membership. Sure there would be a lot of bugs to work out. but a web presents in combination with more satellite offices would go a long way. And in fact they may be slowly going in this direction. 

This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. Membership? We're not talking about a club. We're talking about the Cherokee Nation. The historic Cherokee Nation is now three separate groups: EBCI, CNO, UKB. That's it! There are no other Cherokee Tribes. The Echota Cherokee of Alabama, SECCI, Chickamauga Cherokee Nation of Arkansas & Missouri, Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, and the couple hundred other groups are not Cherokee. They are not citizens of the Cherokee Nation. They may be descendants; but no matter how hard they try, they will never be Cherokee. They are not a Nation; they are not a Tribe. A Tribe has a common history, a continuous community, a nation-to-nation relationship with not only the Federal Government but with other Indian Nations. A group of people can't come together in the 70's or 80's and claim to be an historic anything.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 09, 2009, 09:20:35 am
 Nobody is saying that NDNS that can't prove their heritage can't celebrate it and be proud of it.  Of course they can.

I like what LOM said at the start of this thread about this but I would take it a bit further..
If the CNO were to have 2 classifications that would solve most of the problem. one for citizenship and one for membership. Sure there would be a lot of bugs to work out. but a web presents in combination with more satellite offices would go a long way. And in fact they may be slowly going in this direction.  

This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. Membership? We're not talking about a club. We're talking about the Cherokee Nation. The historic Cherokee Nation is now three separate groups: EBCI, CNO, UKB. That's it! There are no other Cherokee Tribes. The Echota Cherokee of Alabama, SECCI, Chickamauga Cherokee Nation of Arkansas & Missouri, Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, and the couple hundred other groups are not Cherokee. They are not citizens of the Cherokee Nation. They may be descendants; but no matter how hard they try, they will never be Cherokee. They are not a Nation; they are not a Tribe. A Tribe has a common history, a continuous community, a nation-to-nation relationship with not only the Federal Government but with other Indian Nations. A group of people can't come together in the 70's or 80's and claim to be an historic anything.


I don't remember what Tribe, but there are Fed. Tribes that use this classification. I didn't thunk it up. Members have all of the same rights as Citizens do except that they can't live on the rez or receive monies.

 <There are no other Cherokee Tribes> Yes there are,,,  Get you head out of the sand. you just don't like it. I understand that. I also understand that there are those (The Task Farce) that may be trying to change that FACT but I don't think they will be able to do that.

<They are not citizens of the Cherokee Nation>
Nor do they want to be. The sad FACT is they the CNO as much as they would like it are NOT the only Cherokee Tribe.

And FYI the CNO does have 2 type of CLUBS, as you put it. It's a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: bls926 on October 09, 2009, 12:41:30 pm
I don't remember what Tribe, but there are Fed. Tribes that use this classification. I didn't thunk it up. Members have all of the same rights as Citizens do except that they can't live on the rez or receive monies.

 <There are no other Cherokee Tribes> Yes there are,,,  Get you head out of the sand. you just don't like it. I understand that. I also understand that there are those (The Task Farce) that may be trying to change that FACT but I don't think they will be able to do that.

<They are not citizens of the Cherokee Nation>
Nor do they want to be. The sad FACT is they the CNO as much as they would like it are NOT the only Cherokee Tribe.

And FYI the CNO does have 2 type of CLUBS, as you put it. It's a step in the right direction.


I think you missed the point I was making. Nation/Tribe vs Club. Someone is a citizen of their Nation, a member of a Club. You are born a citizen and will die a citizen, unless you renounce your citizenship. You join a club and as long as you continue to pay your dues you will remain a member. There are three legitimate Cherokee Nations. There are hundreds of Cherokee Clubs.

No, Paul, there are not any other Cherokee Tribes. As stated above, there are hundreds of Cherokee Clubs, heritage societies. Some do this in a respectful way, others aren't so respectful. Those are the facts. What I don't like is all these other groups pretending to be Cherokee Tribes. They give all Cherokee descendants a bad name.

If the Echota Cherokee don't want to be citizens of the Cherokee Nation, why are they pretending to be part of it? The term Cherokee Nation refers to the historic Nation. I never said CNO was the only Cherokee Tribe. I know that the Cherokee Nation is now the EBCI, CNO, and UKB.

Please explain what you meant by "And FYI the CNO does have 2 type of CLUBS, as you put it."
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on October 09, 2009, 06:41:47 pm
Quote
The fact that the CNO held black slaves meant that they shared his prejudices.


Actually it was a minorty of mixed blood Cherokees who took on the habits and customs of their white counterparts.  Not the majority of the Tribe.

Quote
So now you have a combination of a white racist Dawes representing a white racist government, following the "lead" of former slave owners and traitors to the Union.

You must not know much about politics in the Cherokee Nation during the Civil War.  For many Cherkoees, it was more about how the Tribe as a whole would make out, and under which side they would benefit most under.  Don't forget that the "Union" you mention is the same "Union" that drove the entire Cherokee Nation out of its homeland in 1838-1839 and forcibly removed the whole Tribe to Indian Territory.  I don't see how you can call the factions of the Cherokee Nation that sided with the South "Traders" to the Union.


That makes no sense. Who do you think the Georgia confederates were, they were the same people who drove the Cherokee out of Georgia. Indian Territory was part of the Union which established it. To take up arms in rebellion is treason, that's all. If you don't like the results of an election  what do you declare war? That's treason!
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Moma_porcupine on October 09, 2009, 07:08:08 pm
Don, as I said in my response that got moved to another thread, i don't see how this has anything to do with the topic of the people claiming to be Echota Cherokee's unless these attitudes towards people of African descent are what caused these people to become seperated from the main tribal groups. As far as I know this isn't the case.

For people reading this who didn't notice, the discussion of the CNO's relationship with people of African descent got moved to it's own thread , but as some of the discussions are intertwined it is a bit of a mess.
 
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2377.0
Cherokee Freedmen
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Don Naconna on October 09, 2009, 08:53:21 pm
Thanks, I believe that the freedmen are a separate topic and should have a separate thread.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 09, 2009, 11:08:04 pm
I don't remember what Tribe, but there are Fed. Tribes that use this classification. I didn't thunk it up. Members have all of the same rights as Citizens do except that they can't live on the rez or receive monies.

 <There are no other Cherokee Tribes> Yes there are,,,  Get you head out of the sand. you just don't like it. I understand that. I also understand that there are those (The Task Farce) that may be trying to change that FACT but I don't think they will be able to do that.

<They are not citizens of the Cherokee Nation>
Nor do they want to be. The sad FACT is they the CNO as much as they would like it are NOT the only Cherokee Tribe.

And FYI the CNO does have 2 type of CLUBS, as you put it. It's a step in the right direction.


I think you missed the point I was making. Nation/Tribe vs Club. Someone is a citizen of their Nation, a member of a Club. You are born a citizen and will die a citizen, unless you renounce your citizenship. You join a club and as long as you continue to pay your dues you will remain a member. There are three legitimate Cherokee Nations. There are hundreds of Cherokee Clubs.

No, Paul, there are not any other Cherokee Tribes. As stated above, there are hundreds of Cherokee Clubs, heritage societies. Some do this in a respectful way, others aren't so respectful. Those are the facts. What I don't like is all these other groups pretending to be Cherokee Tribes. They give all Cherokee descendants a bad name.

If the Echota Cherokee don't want to be citizens of the Cherokee Nation, why are they pretending to be part of it? The term Cherokee Nation refers to the historic Nation. I never said CNO was the only Cherokee Tribe. I know that the Cherokee Nation is now the EBCI, CNO, and UKB.

Please explain what you meant by "And FYI the CNO does have 2 type of CLUBS, as you put it."

bls926,
Respectfully, I fully understand what is intended to be a Nation. The 3 Fed Tribes ARE fully Nations (well as far as the USA will allow them to be). And some of the State Tribes IF they ever get Fed, recognition will be a Nation too, and I believe that until (if ever) they do get it they will only be a Tribe. And yes some are Clubs and say so in their names. And Sure there are a big bunch of Frauds. Now we can keep on trying to re-define the words Nation, Tribe, Club until we are blue in the face but the simple FACT is that someone else has already done that.

The Echota Tribe does NOT and has never (as far as I can tell ) claimed to be a part of the CNO. It would be nice if the two could be Brothers but hell, the CNO can't even get along with it's Keetoowah Brothers, so I know that ain't happening. 

The 2 Clubs that the CNO have are their Satellite Communities and their First Families of the Cherokee Nation. There may be even more but these are 2 that I know about.

Links: http://www.cherokee.org/Organizations/Communities/Default.aspx
         http://www.cherokeeheritage.org/cherokeeheritage/first_families.html

     



 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: bls926 on October 10, 2009, 12:53:01 am
I think you missed the point I was making. Nation/Tribe vs Club. Someone is a citizen of their Nation, a member of a Club. You are born a citizen and will die a citizen, unless you renounce your citizenship. You join a club and as long as you continue to pay your dues you will remain a member. There are three legitimate Cherokee Nations. There are hundreds of Cherokee Clubs.

No, Paul, there are not any other Cherokee Tribes. As stated above, there are hundreds of Cherokee Clubs, heritage societies. Some do this in a respectful way, others aren't so respectful. Those are the facts. What I don't like is all these other groups pretending to be Cherokee Tribes. They give all Cherokee descendants a bad name.

If the Echota Cherokee don't want to be citizens of the Cherokee Nation, why are they pretending to be part of it? The term Cherokee Nation refers to the historic Nation. I never said CNO was the only Cherokee Tribe. I know that the Cherokee Nation is now the EBCI, CNO, and UKB.

Please explain what you meant by "And FYI the CNO does have 2 type of CLUBS, as you put it."

bls926,
Respectfully, I fully understand what is intended to be a Nation. The 3 Fed Tribes ARE fully Nations (well as far as the USA will allow them to be). And some of the State Tribes IF they ever get Fed, recognition will be a Nation too, and I believe that until (if ever) they do get it they will only be a Tribe. And yes some are Clubs and say so in their names. And Sure there are a big bunch of Frauds. Now we can keep on trying to re-define the words Nation, Tribe, Club until we are blue in the face but the simple FACT is that someone else has already done that.

The Echota Tribe does NOT and has never (as far as I can tell ) claimed to be a part of the CNO. It would be nice if the two could be Brothers but hell, the CNO can't even get along with it's Keetoowah Brothers, so I know that ain't happening. 

The 2 Clubs that the CNO have are their Satellite Communities and their First Families of the Cherokee Nation. There may be even more but these are 2 that I know about.

Links: http://www.cherokee.org/Organizations/Communities/Default.aspx
         http://www.cherokeeheritage.org/cherokeeheritage/first_families.html

 

I'm not trying to redefine the words. I'm using them as they were intended to be used. Apparently you aren't familiar with their meaning, so I'll explain. Nation and Tribe are interchangeable. EBCI, CNO, and UKB are Nations; you can also use Tribe. A Tribe has a common history, a continuous community, a nation-to-nation relationship with not only the Federal Government but with other Indian Nations. The other groups professing to be Cherokee are Clubs; they are not Nations/Tribes. A group of people can't come together in the 70's or 80's and claim to be a Tribe. Where is their common history? Their continuous community? Their nation-to-nation relationship with other Nations?

I did not say that the Echota Cherokee claimed to be part of the CNO. However, the very fact that they call themselves Cherokee means they are claiming to be part of the historic Cherokee Nation. You highlighted part of what I said up there, but not the important part: The term Cherokee Nation refers to the historic Nation.

Clubs are excellent for citizens who do not reside in North Carolina or Oklahoma, so they can have a sense of community. They're also good for those who cannot enroll. This is a good thing. Maybe the Echota Cherokee and some of these other groups should look into something along these lines, instead of trying to set themselves up as Tribes.

Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on October 10, 2009, 01:05:58 am
I don't remember what Tribe, but there are Fed. Tribes that use this classification. I didn't thunk it up. Members have all of the same rights as Citizens do except that they can't live on the rez or receive monies.

 <There are no other Cherokee Tribes> Yes there are,,,  Get you head out of the sand. you just don't like it. I understand that. I also understand that there are those (The Task Farce) that may be trying to change that FACT but I don't think they will be able to do that.

<They are not citizens of the Cherokee Nation>
Nor do they want to be. The sad FACT is they the CNO as much as they would like it are NOT the only Cherokee Tribe.

And FYI the CNO does have 2 type of CLUBS, as you put it. It's a step in the right direction.


I think you missed the point I was making. Nation/Tribe vs Club. Someone is a citizen of their Nation, a member of a Club. You are born a citizen and will die a citizen, unless you renounce your citizenship. You join a club and as long as you continue to pay your dues you will remain a member. There are three legitimate Cherokee Nations. There are hundreds of Cherokee Clubs.

No, Paul, there are not any other Cherokee Tribes. As stated above, there are hundreds of Cherokee Clubs, heritage societies. Some do this in a respectful way, others aren't so respectful. Those are the facts. What I don't like is all these other groups pretending to be Cherokee Tribes. They give all Cherokee descendants a bad name.

If the Echota Cherokee don't want to be citizens of the Cherokee Nation, why are they pretending to be part of it? The term Cherokee Nation refers to the historic Nation. I never said CNO was the only Cherokee Tribe. I know that the Cherokee Nation is now the EBCI, CNO, and UKB.

Please explain what you meant by "And FYI the CNO does have 2 type of CLUBS, as you put it."

bls926,
Respectfully, I fully understand what is intended to be a Nation. The 3 Fed Tribes ARE fully Nations (well as far as the USA will allow them to be). And some of the State Tribes IF they ever get Fed, recognition will be a Nation too, and I believe that until (if ever) they do get it they will only be a Tribe. And yes some are Clubs and say so in their names. And Sure there are a big bunch of Frauds. Now we can keep on trying to re-define the words Nation, Tribe, Club until we are blue in the face but the simple FACT is that someone else has already done that.

The Echota Tribe does NOT and has never (as far as I can tell ) claimed to be a part of the CNO. It would be nice if the two could be Brothers but hell, the CNO can't even get along with it's Keetoowah Brothers, so I know that ain't happening.  

The 2 Clubs that the CNO have are their Satellite Communities and their First Families of the Cherokee Nation. There may be even more but these are 2 that I know about.

Links: http://www.cherokee.org/Organizations/Communities/Default.aspx
         http://www.cherokeeheritage.org/cherokeeheritage/first_families.html

    



 


Quote
IF they ever get Fed, recognition will be a Nation too, and I believe that until (if ever) they do get it they will only be a Tribe.


 You are really starting to sound uneducated when it comes to Native issues Paul. I don't mean it to insult you or belittle you, but rather point out facts about what you say as I see them.

 The definition of a treaty is " a signed agreement between to sovereign nations." So in this regards since the colonial powers, and later the United States signed treaties with our nations; they were recognizing we were sovereign nations.

  In reality referring to our nations as tribes is a misnomer,and I often times cringe at even using the word "tribe" in speaking of our nations. Referring to our nations as "tribes" to me belittles our confederacies, tribal governments etc that existed long before the coming of Europeans.

 Even your usage here of the word tribe versus nations is hinting at the concept of a our political entities not being fully sovereign since you say  out how you feel the "Echota are just a tribe now, but if recognized would be a nation." So what you are saying is that since the USG doesn't recognize them on the federal level they are just something called a "tribe," but if recognized would be a "Nation." So what you are doing here is down playing the fact that we have been political organizations (nations) long before the United States itself even existed.

 If I were to play into your statement here on the usage of the word "tribe," I could still show great flaw and ignorance in your statements.

 Taking from wikipedia, which I realize is not a good source, but works okay to this capacity in being used here; it defines tribes as the following:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe

 A tribe, viewed historically or developmentally, consists of a social group existing before the development of, or outside of, states.

Many anthropologists use the term to refer to societies organized largely on the basis of kinship, especially corporate descent groups (see clan and lineage).

Some theorists hold that tribes represent a stage in social evolution intermediate between bands and states. Other theorists argue that tribes developed after, and must be understood in terms of their relationship to, states.


 Now taking that into consideration, and to make a blanket statement about Native nations here in the western hemisphere I can say this.

 Most tribes have interrelated family units that for the sake of this discussion I will called "clans." When you have several "clans" together they form "bands." Of course we can then deduct more then one band coming together would constitute the "tribe."

 These Echota people I am sure have no real knowledge of what clans they might be from, if at all; with it being pretty obvious they most likely dont and if claim to do so, are just  making it up.

  So from a anthropological standpoint, these Echota people don't even have the basic building blocks in this society they are trying to gain recognition for, and claiming to be an authentic Cherokee population in doing so.

  Then from there I am sure that everything else from language, ways etc are also absent. In this I believe the Echota are  most likely trying to borrow known information from places like the Real Cherokee Nations themselves to obtain language knowledge etc.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 10, 2009, 10:45:20 am
Dang,, discussing what the definition of "is" is with you guys is more fun than discussing the Bible with a Jehovah's Witness and an Latter Days Saint at the same time.

bls926
Nation and Tribe are interchangeable. EBCI, CNO, and UKB are Nations; you can also use Tribe. A Tribe has a common history, a continuous community, a nation-to-nation relationship with not only the Federal Government but with other Indian Nations.

Rattlebone
In reality referring to our nations as tribes is a misnomer, and I often times cringe at even using the word "tribe" in speaking of our nations. Referring to our nations as "tribes" to me belittles our confederacies, tribal governments etc that existed long before the coming of Europeans.


And to think, you guys told me that I am miss-informed (well I think ignorant was the term)  as to what the definition of a Tribe is because I posted the USG's definition of it. ROFL

When you guys can agree amongst yourselves about what your definition is,, let me know.
In the meanwhile,,, I'll just use the Government's definition.

42 U.S.C. § 9801 et.seq. Section 674 of the act defines tribes as:

    (5) The terms "Indian tribe" and "tribal organization" mean those tribes, bands, or other organized groups of Indians recognized in the State in which they reside or considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian tribe or an Indian organization for any purpose.




Through out this thread you guys keep saying things like "You just can't form a tribe". It has been said over and over in several different ways. But that still doesn't change the FACT that this has ALREADY been done. You just keep refusing to admit it by trying to convince me that they SHOULDN'T have done it. The Catholics say the same thing about the Protestants.

Perhaps we should be debating the definition of CAN'T and SHOULDN'T.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: bls926 on October 10, 2009, 02:59:37 pm
Paul, you're now grasping at straws; trying to twist things we've said. Nation and Tribe are interchangeable; however most prefer the term Nation. Nation denotes more respect than Tribe. The Cherokee, Choctaw, Lenape, Creek, Lakota are truly sovereign Nations. That's the point Rattle was trying to make.

No matter how many times you say the Echota Cherokee are a Tribe, it doesn't make it true. They're a Tribe in their own mind. They are not a Nation or a Tribe. A group of adults cannot come together and decide to create a tribe. There is no shared history, no continuous community, no nation-to-nation relationship with other Nations. The Echota are a heritage society, a club, made up of Cherokee descendants. Their ancestors chose to leave the Nation and they must live by that decision. What they and other similar groups are doing shows disrespect.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 10, 2009, 03:12:57 pm
Through out this thread you guys keep saying things like "You just can't form a tribe". It has been said over and over in several different ways. But that still doesn't change the FACT that this has ALREADY been done. You just keep refusing to admit it by trying to convince me that they SHOULDN'T have done it. (http://Through out this thread you guys keep saying things like "You just can't form a tribe". It has been said over and over in several different ways. But that still doesn't change the FACT that this has ALREADY been done. You just keep refusing to admit it by trying to convince me that they SHOULDN'T have done it.)

So what would people say Paul if 20 or 30 Irish Americans got together in lets say New York City and declared to everyone that they were an "Embassy of Ireland"?  And then they even went as far as to rent a building and declared an Irish ambassador, and met there once a month, and started to give teachings about Irish culture?

Just because they DID THIS does not correlate to them having even the least bit of legitimacy.  These people would only be legit in their own minds.  And I'm sure the Irish Goverment woul'dn't be too happy about it.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: bls926 on October 10, 2009, 03:42:39 pm
Through out this thread you guys keep saying things like "You just can't form a tribe". It has been said over and over in several different ways. But that still doesn't change the FACT that this has ALREADY been done. You just keep refusing to admit it by trying to convince me that they SHOULDN'T have done it. (http://Through out this thread you guys keep saying things like "You just can't form a tribe". It has been said over and over in several different ways. But that still doesn't change the FACT that this has ALREADY been done. You just keep refusing to admit it by trying to convince me that they SHOULDN'T have done it.)

So what would people say Paul if 20 or 30 Irish Americans got together in lets say New York City and declared to everyone that they were an "Embassy of Ireland"?  And then they even went as far as to rent a building and declared an Irish ambassador, and met there once a month, and started to give teachings about Irish culture?

Just because they DID THIS does not correlate to them having even the least bit of legitimacy.  These people would only be legit in their own minds.  And I'm sure the Irish Goverment woul'dn't be too happy about it.

Better than that . . . What if this group of Irish-Americans claimed to be a separate nation? Called themselves New Ireland? In essence, this is exactly what the Echota Cherokee have done. They've set themselves up as a separate nation.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on October 10, 2009, 05:16:07 pm
These people would only be legit in their own minds.  And I'm sure the Irish Goverment woul'dn't be too happy about it.
Better than that . . . What if this group of Irish-Americans claimed to be a separate nation? Called themselves New Ireland?

Heh, the already-existing, longstanding, Irish immigrant and Irish-American social, political and cultural clubs, and all their cousins, would march right over and kick their idiotic asses :-)
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 10, 2009, 05:31:24 pm
Heh, the already-existing, longstanding, Irish immigrant and Irish-American social, political and cultural clubs, and all their cousins, would march right over and kick their idiotic asses :-) (http://Heh, the already-existing, longstanding, Irish immigrant and Irish-American social, political and cultural clubs, and all their cousins, would march right over and kick their idiotic asses :-))

Haha.  I think your right about that.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Rattlebone on October 10, 2009, 05:37:10 pm




Quote
Dang,, discussing what the definition of "is" is with you guys is more fun than discussing the Bible with a Jehovah's Witness and an Latter Days Saint at the same time.

 Nope not really. BLS926 and I did say the exact same thing, but said it in different ways.  I think BLS926 kept it short and sweet with you.


 
Quote
bls926
Nation and Tribe are interchangeable. EBCI, CNO, and UKB are Nations; you can also use Tribe. A Tribe has a common history, a continuous community, a nation-to-nation relationship with not only the Federal Government but with other Indian Nations.

Rattlebone
In reality referring to our nations as tribes is a misnomer, and I often times cringe at even using the word "tribe" in speaking of our nations. Referring to our nations as "tribes" to me belittles our confederacies, tribal governments etc that existed long before the coming of Europeans.


 You know people call us Indians, and we even refer to ourselves as Indians; thing is are any of us from India?

 In my opinion the colonial powers referred to us as tribes because they didn't want to fully accept us as sovereign powers even if they were signing treaties with us. This of course was carried on by the US government. Of course take into consideration they didn't even consider us human beings. In fact we were considered less then the African slaves they were bringing over here because we had no value to them. If you want to see just how NON human they seen us, try checking out the history of California and the "Indian shoots" they used to have here, that would wipe out entire tribes.

 So in short, we can say Indian interchangeably with Native American. We can say tribe interchangeably with Nation. The thing here is that one is more correct then the other, and there are specific reasons why that is so, even if those terms are used interchangeably.

Quote
And to think, you guys told me that I am miss-informed (well I think ignorant was the term)  as to what the definition of a Tribe is because I posted the USG's definition of it. ROFL


 Well it was me that said you were ignorant of this issue, but I was not saying you were an ignorant person.


 The definition of ignorant is:

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.  
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.  
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.


 When you made the statement that the Echota were a tribe because they are not recognized, and would be a nation when they were, did show ignorance on the definition of both issues no matter what side of the argument you want to take on this issue.

 One thing about myself, is that I was at one time a student of Wendy Rose, who is a very well known and respected Native educator among a few other things. Though this does not make me any sort of expert on topics like this, I do feel I am more knowledgeable on certain things then other people because of it.

 So when I point out things about my view points on things such as words and concepts such as tribes, nations etc; often times this comes from things I learned from Wendy Rose, and many other educators I have actually known in my life, or who's works I have studied.

 I did this in an attempt to give you a greater understanding of certain things, and did so trying to use the best of my memory of what I was taught about such things.

 I use this approach with people both NON NDN and NDN, along side of traditional things I have learned in person from elders and other traditional people I was blessed to have in my life.

 What I see here is that there are many of us who have knowledge and experience of such things as being discussed here, but it seems to me that you try to discount what we try to tell you. It is almost as if you don't want answers, but rather want us to simply agree with you.

 I do admit I don't always agree with everyone in this thread, but nobody here is out to prevent you or anyone else from acknowledging what ancestry you may have or honoring it by living as such. The only thing being pointed out here is that it should be done so without stepping over boundaries that might be harmful to legitimate tribes and NDN people. In this regards it seems as if the Echota are trying to step over those boundaries, and that is where the core problem is.


Quote
Through out this thread you guys keep saying things like "You just can't form a tribe". It has been said over and over in several different ways. But that still doesn't change the FACT that this has ALREADY been done. You just keep refusing to admit it by trying to convince me that they SHOULDN'T have done it.

 Prove one instance where it has been done in which the federal government recognized the tribe as legitimate.



Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 10, 2009, 05:39:50 pm
And Paul.  I'm convinced by now that there is absoutly nothing that anyone can say here in this forum that is going to convince you that the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama is not a Cherokee Tribe.  Your in complete denial.


Many people in this forum. ( Rattlebone, bls926, EducatedIndian, Kathryn, NicDhana, Moma Porcupine, and others, ) here have been extremely patient and consise in trying to explain to you why the Echotas are not a Tribe.  Its all laid out here in the over 11 pages.  You keep saying we have not proven anything.  You have not giving one shred of evidence that validates the Echotas claims of being a Cherokee Tribe/Nation.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Defend the Sacred on October 10, 2009, 05:54:53 pm
And Paul.  I'm convinced by now that there is absoutly nothing that anyone can say here in this forum that is going to convince you that the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama is not a Cherokee Tribe.  Your in complete denial.

Agreed. :-(
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 10, 2009, 06:45:57 pm
And Paul.  I'm convinced by now that there is absoutly nothing that anyone can say here in this forum that is going to convince you that the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama is not a Cherokee Tribe.  Your in complete denial.


Many people in this forum. ( Rattlebone, bls926, EducatedIndian, Kathryn, NicDhana, Moma Porcupine, and others, ) here have been extremely patient and consise in trying to explain to you why the Echotas are not a Tribe.  Its all laid out here in the over 11 pages.  You keep saying we have not proven anything.  You have not giving one shred of evidence that validates the Echotas claims of being a Cherokee Tribe/Nation.

I also agree.

I would first like to say that this is one of the more respectful forums on the web. I took very little offense to the "ignorant" comment. In other forums by now over 1/2 of the thread would have to have been deleted by the admin. Thanks.

 As I said in one of my first replies to this thread, It seems that there is only one person here that knows the Tribe. not counting Don who was a member but doesn't know anything about them. (besides he only wants to talk about the Freedman issues, but that's cool. )  That one person is of course LOM. Yes at this point I refuse to admit that they are not a Tribe, due to the fact that no one here has presented proof about this Tribe. Sure I have been given plenty of opinions that I had already read from the CNO.

I posted a link to a wiki story that had some mention of this tribe but then someone here dashed over and flagged most of it as "Needs Citation" Hey,, that's cool but has anyone here posted even one citation for anything said here?

To sum up one of the last statements in this thread:
I came here to ask you to PROVE that they were (or were NOT) a Tribe. You say they are not because I have not given one shred of evidence that validates the Echotas claims of being a Cherokee Tribe/Nation. Hell, think about what you just said. If I could prove it,,, Why would I have ask you guys? I didn't come here to try to prove to you that they were who they say they are.

  Over the course of this thread it has now gotten to the point of "Yes they are,,, No their not,,, sure they are,,, No their not,,, are too,,, are not,,, nanna nanna boo boo. This has gotten childish. Ever one here says that there has to be a provable history. Well True That. I have even took some of your advice and ask the ACIA what proof they had. but before the ink was dry on that post everyone here concluded that there was no history. Not one of you guys even bothered to say well we can wait to see what they say. What would that take a week perhaps to get a reply? In a nut shell I see that if you want a job done right ,,, DO IT YOURSELF. I apologize for asking you guys to help do that work for me.

And lastly,,,

From here there has been no proof. only opinions and definitions. yet in your minds giveing me those IS PROOF.  If the ACIA's people answer me do anyone of you guys want me to bother to post it? or would you just pick it apart too? Hey, we could do another 10 pages on that.
 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Sizzle Flambé on October 11, 2009, 09:30:37 am
I came here to ask you to PROVE that they were (or were NOT) a Tribe.

To prove that a group affirmatively IS a Tribe involves meeting several requirements already stated repeatedly above (a common history, a continuous community, some sort of political self-governance and government-to-government relations).

Proving a negative is trickier, if information is withheld. Say you or I write on here that our local Bingo parlor's crowd is now a "Tribe". Knowing nothing about these people or their backgrounds, how can anyone else "prove" that false?

That's why the burden of proof is on the affirmative claim.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 11, 2009, 01:01:13 pm
I came here to ask you to PROVE that they were (or were NOT) a Tribe.

To prove that a group affirmatively IS a Tribe involves meeting several requirements already stated repeatedly above (a common history, a continuous community, some sort of political self-governance and government-to-government relations).

Proving a negative is trickier, if information is withheld. Say you or I write on here that our local Bingo parlor's crowd is now a "Tribe". Knowing nothing about these people or their backgrounds, how can anyone else "prove" that false?

That's why the burden of proof is on the affirmative claim.

Excellent point,,,

If you know nothing about the Bingo parlor's crowd (or the Echotas) and you just have to post something, then just say so. Just say, I dunno anything about them but ,,, Here's my take on it.

This was the case with wolfhawaii in reply #1. He said "I have not had any direct contact with the "Echota Cherokee tribe of Alabama" so my comments are more general in nature". Of course it would be better if you don't know, then don't say... But I guess that would have made for a short thread wouldn't it? I would have liked it better to hear that only one or two here knew the Tribe and then I would have wondered off to try to find someone that did. And we could have saved ourselves a lot of childish bantering. 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Moma_porcupine on October 11, 2009, 02:20:12 pm
Quote
From here there has been no proof. only opinions and definitions. yet in your minds giveing me those IS PROOF.  If the ACIA's people answer me do anyone of you guys want me to bother to post it? or would you just pick it apart too? Hey, we could do another 10 pages on that.

Well actually I already pointed out where the people calling themselves Echota cherokee have said they didn't even have a name for themselves before they began getting together for meetings ( sounds like this was in the 1980s) . As it's a bit hard to imagine how a continuously recognized tribe could exist for over 100 years with no name, and how this unnamed entity could engage in government to government relations, I feel I have presented very strong evidence this group is not a tribe or Nation.

I would be interested to see what response you get from ACIA. However I would also expect whatever the ACIA presents to fit with other information that has been given . If it doesn't we can't overlook the possibility that the ACIA has been caught in the act of recognizing people as a tribe when they don't even come close to measuring up to it's own criteria , and it may be trying to cover this up. 

Though I agree with Rattlebone that the word tribe should not be used to trivialize government of indigenous societies, I use the words tribe / tribal government and Nation interchangably.

From what I have seen bigger and more impersonal Nations do not provide better leadership than smaller more personally conected tribal governments and I don't see acknowledging this by refering to these indigenous Nations as a tribe or tribal government as a put down.

Quote
If you know nothing about the Bingo parlor's crowd (or the Echotas) and you just have to post something, then just say so.

Paul, to make an analogy , you don't need to know all the details of a persons medical history and have years of training as a surgeon to be able to say surgeons should be well scrubed and don't usually use a kitchen knife and a fork to do surgery. When the basics are off knowing the details probably won't make much difference.

But like Sizzle just pointed out, if the details are what you think would make a difference in how this is interpreted , no one can "prove they aren't real" as you are demanding , without having those details presented.

For someone who says they aren't personally invested either way you sure seem determined to not see what seems obvious to others.... If you are sincere that could make you very vulnerable to be misled....
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: bls926 on October 11, 2009, 03:06:20 pm
I came here to ask you to PROVE that they were (or were NOT) a Tribe.

To prove that a group affirmatively IS a Tribe involves meeting several requirements already stated repeatedly above (a common history, a continuous community, some sort of political self-governance and government-to-government relations).

Proving a negative is trickier, if information is withheld. Say you or I write on here that our local Bingo parlor's crowd is now a "Tribe". Knowing nothing about these people or their backgrounds, how can anyone else "prove" that false?

That's why the burden of proof is on the affirmative claim.

Excellent point,,,

If you know nothing about the Bingo parlor's crowd (or the Echotas) and you just have to post something, then just say so. Just say, I dunno anything about them but ,,, Here's my take on it.

This was the case with wolfhawaii in reply #1. He said "I have not had any direct contact with the "Echota Cherokee tribe of Alabama" so my comments are more general in nature". Of course it would be better if you don't know, then don't say... But I guess that would have made for a short thread wouldn't it? I would have liked it better to hear that only one or two here knew the Tribe and then I would have wondered off to try to find someone that did. And we could have saved ourselves a lot of childish bantering. 


Paul, the only "childish bantering" is coming from you. We have all given you facts about what does make up a Nation/Tribe. We have given you our opinions, as well as the opinion of the three legitimate Cherokee Nations. You've ignored the facts and discount our opinions. You came here wanting to validate the Echota Cherokee of Alabama. You've got your boxers in a bunch because we wouldn't agree with you. You know, it's not that we wouldn't agree with you; it's we couldn't agree with you. To do so, we would have to ignore facts. That isn't going to happen. At best, the Echota are Cherokee descendants; that does not make them a Tribe.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: LittleOldMan on October 11, 2009, 11:41:55 pm
Peace and respect be to you all.  I just returned from the Native American Festival at Moundville. Al.  I was out of computer contact since last Tuesday.  I have read the last few posts since I left and whew!.  One comment first then I will relate what I discovered so far.  Fact!  Whether we, speaking corporately, consider the Echota to be a Tribe or not, the law of Alabama does.  Now the real question as I see it.  Is this an entity that I would want to associate with?  Given the facts that there will of course be people of this organization who are certifiably of Cherokee descent and that there will be also people of good intent would I join them.  Based on some of the information that I gleamed this week from a friend who was a member for over twenty years but has now moved on I would not.  When I first commented on this thread I indicated that a lot of information will  be findable as it will be in court records.  I also indicated that some must from a legal standpoint be considered as hearsay even though because of the integrity of my source I might consider it to be gospel.  What I found out this week will need to be considered as within the latter.  Please keep in mind this group was formed approximately forty years ago and way before the current hoop roar over the term "Tribe".  As I understand it the Echota was formed about forty years ago by a man and his wife who wished to honor and preserve the identity of people of Cherokee descent and the traditions of the Cherokee.  As was related to me the following has since occurred.  The current power team wrested control from the original formers.   They incorporated the Tribe and became the permanent ones in charge.  According to my source they have kept secret most if not all financial information secret and if some one questioned them they would be dismissed from the tribe.  When some wanted to build an assisted living facility on tribal land or do anything to financially assist needy members the powers stated that there was no monies available.  My source related that some how it was leaked that at that time there was over 850,000 in the bank.  Elections were held the old powers were thrown out but before things could be put to right the old powers filed suit.  Because when the old powers incorporated the tribe they were controlling stock holders the new group could not prevail.  Note: Most tribes when they incorporate, I am told,  hold the tribe separate and form a 501-3c with a separate board responsible to the tribal council.  This prevents what seems to have occurred here.  Again my source is one that I have confidence in he was a member for over twenty years but as he runs the national powwow trail was not close enough geographically to participate in tribal matters on any regular basis.  Over time he became disgusted and when he got his belly full he left.   My considered opinion is I am too old to be fooling with such a mess and would at this time recommend not to associate with them on a tribal basis.  Just too much smoke here and I don't mean smudge.  "LittleOldMan" 
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 12, 2009, 03:52:52 am
LOM, thanks for the response.

Quote
As I understand it the Echota was formed about forty years ago by a man and his wife who wished to honor and preserve the identity of people of Cherokee descent and the traditions of the Cherokee.

In this case, it tells me they are not a tribe.

Also. 

Quote
As was related to me the following has since occurred.  The current power team wrested control from the original formers.   They incorporated the Tribe and became the permanent ones in charge.  According to my source they have kept secret most if not all financial information secret and if some one questioned them they would be dismissed from the tribe.  When some wanted to build an assisted living facility on tribal land or do anything to financially assist needy members the powers stated that there was no monies available.


You talk a lot about Tribal Corruption.  This is good info.  However, there are many many cases that I can think of, where Tribal Council Members and even Chiefs of Federally Recognized Tribes have been involved in corruptoin and scandles of this sort and in some cases the corruption scandles are even worse then this. I woudn't associate with the Echotas as a Tribe because they are not a Tribe.  Not because a few of their Council members are alledged to be corrupt.   
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: LittleOldMan on October 12, 2009, 11:25:23 am
BlackWolf:  I agree about the corruption.  It seems to be endemic to a lot of societies including the churches.  I was trying to separate the question of tribal legitimacy from the actions of the group.  To me the question of state tribes or Fed. tribes is all together a different situation.  What I have seen over the last few years of being involved with the powwow trail is that I have detected only occasional, very occasional, problems between Fed card carriers and State card carriers.  Last week for example we had members of the Fed tribes Blackfoot, Muskogee, Cherokee, Choctaw, Houma, plus a dozen or so state tribe affiliated members from the Southeast and some like myself non affiliated.  Any problems that I have encountered are usually related to some one copying someones craft not a BQ or tribal one.  In fact usually we are all together at one or another's  camp for pot luck and conversation.  It seems that I only encounter this argument online and of course the CNO's stance on "fake" tribes.  Why is this?  "LittleOldMan"
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: BlackWolf on October 12, 2009, 12:49:26 pm
Quote
It seems that I only encounter this argument online and of course the CNO's stance on "fake" tribes.  Why is this?


Because Federally Recognized NDNS at powwows are very careful about what they say.  They are usually there as vendors, dancers, and/or performers and ususlly leave politics aside.  They are there to make money and don't want to offend anyone. But go out to Oklahoma and ask the average Cherokee that lives there, and you will hear a different story.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: LittleOldMan on October 12, 2009, 01:21:33 pm
I see I will ask some of my OK friends when I see them again. Thanks "LOM"
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: taraverti on October 12, 2009, 02:00:28 pm
In Gaelic usage, "Black Irish" has nothing to do with being mixed-race or one's religion.

In Ireland, it traditionally means an Irish person who has dark hair and eyes, though some also apply it to those with lighter eyes. This usage has continued in the diaspora among those who are still culturally Irish and Scottish.

The WP article is not too bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Irish, and touches on how language does evolve over time and these things can become more complex... but a small number of people misusing a term doesn't change the historical/majority usage.

Irish and Scottish Gaelic nicknames often use hair color as a prominent descriptor, and while the literal translation of a nickname like "Seán Dubh" is "Black John", and someone with no Gaelic might think it means Seán/John is what we think of as a Person of Color, it really only means the guy has dark hair (and carries the assumption he's a white (Irish) guy with dark hair). 

A film that touches on this is The Secret of Roan Inish, where the family lore is that "the dark ones" in the family are descended from the Selkies (the shape-changing seal people).

As a Chatholic, being raised in the Chatholic faith and still a practicing Chatholic I can safely say that the term Black Irish means a Protestant Irish person. And no I'm not Irish, but have been told as a child by Nuns and other Chatholics alike what the term means.

Hi Diana, may I ask where and when you heard this? I am an American of predominantly Irish and Scottish descent, the usual product of the famines and the clearances. I grew up in a mixed Catholic/Protestant diasporic community in Northern Illinois, and as a young adult lived in Irish immigrant communities in Boston and Chicago. While some Irish people would use "Black" as a slur, and I guess some Catholics might say it about Protestants (and vice versa) because of this, I don't recall anyone ever saying "Black Irish" simply meant Protestants.

While among the Irish "Black Irish" does not mean mixed-race, it is a misconception I've heard multiple times in America. The English in particular compared the Irish to Africans, and Cromwell enslaved them along with the Africans in the Caribbean, so there were racist caricatures drawn of Irish people where they have more African features. This was done by people who were oppressing the Irish as well as People of Color. Google "Anti-Irish racism" for some of that. Slán.
Yup, my first husband was this kind of Black Irish.
Title: Re: Echota Cherokee
Post by: Paul123 on October 12, 2009, 11:00:48 pm
@LOM,
Thank you sir for a most enlightening report.

 Not getting involved in corruption, scandals and power plays are next to imposable with any group whether it is a Tribe, a Government, a Church or an antique car club these days.

But it is something that I would rather pass on.