Author Topic: State Recognized Tribes  (Read 9539 times)

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 255
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2009, 12:23:20 AM »
Rattlebone...  Some of the sources i refer to are on the Pequot website and I agree it's good to be careful of information coming from people with a vested interest.

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

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

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

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

Seems simple to me.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

 So as you say they would have been PODIA's, because that is exactly what they are in cultural terms. Sure they had enough genealogy information to prove they are related to the Peqouts, but they got recognized by political wrangling that got them recognized as a tribe. Most people on the East coast trying to jump through the hurdles needed to gain recognition would never gain it had they been in these exact same circumstances because BIA rules in regards to recognition could have never been met. They gained theirs through Congress and not through the recognition process.

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 255
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2009, 12:52:30 AM »
 Here is some more on the Peqouts.

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

 The article is written by somebody whom I feel is anti Indian, but some of the historical info about the Peqouts seems accurate as is his saying Skip Hayward's biggest dream was just to open a Pizza Parlor.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2009, 12:56:01 AM by Rattlebone »

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 690
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2009, 02:31:08 AM »
Rattlebone
Quote
The tribe had ceased to exist since the late 1800's and nothing culturally about it had been maintained.

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

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

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

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


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

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

I don't feel like continuing this discussion as we seem to be going in circles and getting nowhere.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2009, 02:32:39 AM by Moma_porcupine »

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 690
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2009, 03:22:37 AM »
And Rattlebone is right that I somehow got off on the Mohegan people who lived in the same area but were not the Pequots ...I have no idea how i did that . I think my brain must be turning to mush ...

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

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

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

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


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

I am not finding the Ledyard area Pequots in the 1880 census. They may be recorded as a tribe in records from that time period, but if they are it's not as easy to find as i thought. 

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2009, 04:38:45 AM »
Moma_Porcupine and Rattlebone, I'm curious to what you all think of the Lumbee Tribe?  I believe they are a mixture of mulattos ( blacks and whites ), and Indians.  I think the issue of what tribe they are decendent from is debated.  Some say Cherokee, Tuscarora, Croatan, Cheraw.  I don't think anything is really clear?

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

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

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

 

Offline bullhead

  • Posts: 30
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2009, 05:16:14 PM »
here is a link that might help some of you .
http://www.lumbeetribe.com/http://

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

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2009, 06:17:18 PM »
Quote
I Don`t think there is ONE tribe out in that area that can claim they are pure cherokee or Saponi or meherrin or chowan etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest they may be a new tribe because the evidence does'nt seem to be clear as to exactly what Historic Tribe they are decendent from.  Why were they recognized first as Croatan Indians?  And what is their historic langauge? 

Offline bullhead

  • Posts: 30
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #37 on: April 02, 2009, 09:27:39 PM »
blackwolf, i didn`t say that there are no fullblood cherokees or saponi`s or meherrin or chowan.I clearly said { I DON`T THINK THERE IS ONE TRIBE out in that area that can claim they are pure }: yes i am talking north carolina, south carolina ,virgina, the lumbee are in north carolina eh.I think most tribes have mixedbloods today.

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

you also say should they be considered a new tribe{ meaning indians who lost there customs of there old tribes just starting a new tribe?}
they have been a native community to some degree for hundreds of years.
i don`t have a right to speak for the lumbee, which is why i put there website up here,i was hoping you might ask them some questions,they have people to speak for them.
the reason i posted the first time should be obvious,  it was to simply point out your disrespectful crap.feel free to twist this one around to.

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #38 on: April 02, 2009, 10:15:39 PM »
Quote
you refer to these aboriginal people as MULATTO`S you said { BLACKS and WHITES } and indian.

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

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

200 years is a short amount of time.

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

What exactly was disrespecful? 

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


Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 82
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2009, 01:04:49 AM »
are the lumbees that tribe that was created by that famous white explorer?

If not the lumbees , then what tribe was that then? I forgot this explorers name, but he started a colony, and this colony decided to live like indians and so called themselves a new tribe from that point on. I never knew details of the rest of this historical account.
I never heard that they were a mix. I never heard how the native tribes treated them thereafter. Only that they came to be.

Offline Scott Brainard

  • Posts: 44
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2009, 02:12:17 AM »
Sounds like the story of Prince Madoc, a Welsh explorer purported to have traveled to America with a group of colonists around the 11th or 12th century. 

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

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 255
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2009, 02:55:05 AM »
Moma_Porcupine and Rattlebone, I'm curious to what you all think of the Lumbee Tribe?  I believe they are a mixture of mulattos ( blacks and whites ), and Indians.  I think the issue of what tribe they are decendent from is debated.  Some say Cherokee, Tuscarora, Croatan, Cheraw.  I don't think anything is really clear?

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

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

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

 


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

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

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


frederica

  • Guest
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2009, 02:49:54 PM »
The Lumbee are considered  "Indian" by the Feds.  They have received that recognition in the mid 1950's, not the benefits.  They just do not have the entire package and that is what they have been fighting for.  http://www.lumbeetribe.com/
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 03:57:17 PM by frederica »

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #43 on: April 03, 2009, 11:29:59 PM »
 
Quote
I beleive they are the remnants of tribes that were decimated by warfare and disease that joined up with Tuscarora people who decided to remain in their homeland.

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

Do you or anyone know if any of the tradiions or customs from the dominant tribe or any of the other tribes. ( the Tuscaroras, ) were maintained?  Or did their tradions and customs evolve into something distnict?

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 690
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #44 on: April 04, 2009, 01:19:39 AM »
Hey I agree with Rattlebone ...   ;D   Not that I know enough about this to have any opinion except about the general principals. This seems to be one of those situations where I wonder what the feds expect ? From what I read there doesn't seem to be any reasonable reason not to recognize the Lumbee as a tribe.

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

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

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

There is another thread discussing these complicated definitions below.

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