Author Topic: State Recognized Tribes  (Read 28829 times)

Offline bullhead

  • Posts: 30
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2009, 02:18:26 pm »
Koyoteh i find your posts #12 & #13 some what confusing to me.
in post 12 you seem to have a problem with the white man telling us that we can`t form a new tribe. but in post 13 you think the white mans rules aren`t so bad for the most part.

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

they should not beable to tell us that we can`t form a new Tribe.But the example in the above post ,I would look at those people as a band of a tribe,since it is the lakota who migrated and there culture is pretty much intact today ,those who migrated ,i would think they would build there new community with the same traditional foundation there ancestors built on.
but i think it would be up to this new tribe / band and there relatives to determine how they are defined.

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 684
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2009, 03:08:21 pm »
Bullhead
Quote
they should not beable to tell us that we can`t form a new Tribe.But the example in the above post ,I would look at those people as a band of a tribe,since it is the lakota who migrated and there culture is pretty much intact today ,those who migrated ,i would think they would build there new community with the same traditional foundation there ancestors built on.
but i think it would be up to this new tribe / band and there relatives to determine how they are defined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seem obvious to me that important decisions about things like tribal membership, acknowldging related bands , cultural mantainence and protection , and  positions of leadership are best left in the hands of people who have the proper community support and the most intact cultural knowledge.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2009, 03:16:36 pm by Moma_porcupine »

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2009, 03:33:36 pm »
Quote
I see no problem with 200 migrating lakota started off new in another place. They may be lucky that they didn't have to fight anyone for a spot, but if they are so lucky, then more power to them. Unless we have 500 eden stories , and each one says we can't move from our original spot by some god law, then there's nothing else that says that natives can't migrate.


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

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


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

Moma porcupine sums it up good here.



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

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

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2009, 05:51:50 pm »


 

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

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



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

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

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

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


Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2009, 09:36:52 pm »
Koyoteh i find your posts #12 & #13 some what confusing to me.
in post 12 you seem to have a problem with the white man telling us that we can`t form a new tribe. but in post 13 you think the white mans rules aren`t so bad for the most part.

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

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

See I listen to people talk about how bad life is for us all the time, yet it must not be or else they'd do something about it.

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2009, 09:50:17 pm »
i will not quote anyone as it really isn't about any one quote.

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

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

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

But what about when someone is kicked out in a messed up way? Then really they are being DENIED their rights to the benefits of the treaty. They didn't leave or give up the rights to the benefits of the treaty of their own free will. What then? I say its messed up. Do tribes have the right? maybe, but is it irght?

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1423
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2009, 03:02:18 am »
Like i said before if a part of people leave their nation, they do not start a new tribe.
They start maybe a new clan or band of that tribe. They must always have contact and family with the old tribe.

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

In Spirit

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 684
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2009, 03:12:47 am »
Rattlebone

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

So no matter what the critics say, and no matter how low peoples BQ has become after 400 years of colonization , the well recorded facts speak for themselves, and I don't see any legitimate reason to dispute their identity as a tribe.  There is a lot more going on here than a group of distant descendants who have lived as non native for several generations trying to recreate a tribe.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 03:21:37 am by Moma_porcupine »

Offline bullhead

  • Posts: 30
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2009, 02:44:53 pm »
Koyoteh
in your #20 post{talking about legally federal recognition and who retains a right to benefits from a treaty is something else. if members leave a tribe of there own free will,then they are also giving up the benefits of the treaty there old tribe had .}

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

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2009, 01:52:40 am »
Quote
Why can't they just form their own tribe? IF we are supposed to be sovereign in the first place, then why should a foreign govt be able to tell us we CAN"T form our own tribe? What business is it of theirs? "Heritage Group"? Now I really do understand what you mean, but I also understand that this is a perspective that is not a native one. Yes a native may now have adopted this perspective but this perspective is clearly instilled from the legal system of the imposed european govt under which natives have been living in. This is not a matter of hate or anger, its just the truth.
The argument part is where some say " why can't we form our own tribes? " "thats the way we have always done it." we didn't have words like "heritage group".



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2009, 07:05:44 pm »
Like i said before if a part of people leave their nation, they do not start a new tribe.
They start maybe a new clan or band of that tribe. They must always have contact and family with the old tribe.

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



like i said before, once a person leaves a tribe, the btribe they left or were made to leave no longer has any say in the matter. How could they? do lakotas speak for the chumash? do shoshone speak for apache? does any nation speak for the disconnected, the disenrolled, the nonfederally recognized, or for anyone else  in the world?  should they?  if you mean legally, within the united states, and only with those who hold legal treaty/contracts then maybe u have a point., but that would also be giving up some of your own sovereignty, which is entirely up to you, but u cant decide that for others.

Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2009, 07:10:34 pm »
Koyoteh
in your #20 post{talking about legally federal recognition and who retains a right to benefits from a treaty is something else. if members leave a tribe of there own free will,then they are also giving up the benefits of the treaty there old tribe had .}

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

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


Offline koyoteh

  • Posts: 113
  • Yaqui and MesoAmerican
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2009, 07:25:14 pm »
yes to just about all of these things you just said. Makes me excited to know how far my community and people have come in 500 years after contact.  Yep, here in L.A. we are pretty tight knit. We don't all agree with each other , but i am proud now to say that , after a lot of hard work and the work still continues, we are pretty tight knit. We also go beyond L.A. A lot of it is also due to the help of other nations, other tribes, clans, even across borders.  Exciting time period really.
After 1492, depending on where your nation was at at the time started a new cycle- time period, every time period and human being and society, goes through stages. Somtiemes called life stages. 1492 was first contact for some, and its been over 500 years. My people made contact before 1521, my wifes people way before that. So we've gone through some life stages that others have not , but now are going through ,and may or may not go through in the future if things go well or not. Say like a nation who just made contact 200 years ago, or 100 years ago , or 10 years ago. This makes for a lot of problems in intertribal communications, cause of the dfferences of our realities of the experiences we have gone through or haven't gone through yet.
 We are at a stage where we are now developing our own economy, our own schools. we started off with dancing. we have events and ceremonies on a consistent basis, and yes we even had our stage of annoying "SUPER" indians, or as we say "super-xicanos". I hope we passed that stage though. Thats only a stage for the disconnected and for those connected who get glorified by the disconnected, which we have also seen . LOL funny when you look back at it.
Yes I say MEXICA. Now from time to time depending on who I am talking to I may say native, or even rarely , mexican , or even more rarely hispanic which is wrong but understood. I really don't want to get into a deep converstation at the doctors secretary's window.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2009, 10:30:06 pm »
Rattlebone

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 So in my mind the vast majority of these people might fall under your PODIA category, and in any other circumstances such as them not being recognized I kinda doubt that you would support them.
 

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 684
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: State Recognized Tribes
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2009, 11:49:38 pm »
Rattlebone...  Some of the sources i refer to are on the Pequot website and I agree it's good to be careful of information coming from people with a vested interest.

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

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

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

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

Seems simple to me.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2009, 11:51:39 pm by Moma_porcupine »