Author Topic: Echota Cherokee  (Read 120310 times)

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Echota Cherokee
« 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?

Offline wolfhawaii

  • Posts: 294
Echota Cherokee
« Reply #1 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.

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Echota Cherokee
« Reply #2 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

Offline wolfhawaii

  • Posts: 294
Echota Cherokee
« Reply #3 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.

Offline Defend the Sacred

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3426
Echota Cherokee
« Reply #4 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

* Cherokee Nation (Fraudulent Indian) Task Force

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 .


Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Echota Cherokee
« Reply #5 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.

 

Offline LittleOldMan

  • Posts: 138
Echota Cherokee
« Reply #6 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 
 
Blind unfocused anger is unproductive and can get you hurt.  Controlled and focused anger directed tactically wins wars. Remember the sheath is not the sword.

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4638
Echota Cherokee
« Reply #7 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/

Offline LittleOldMan

  • Posts: 138
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #8 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"
Blind unfocused anger is unproductive and can get you hurt.  Controlled and focused anger directed tactically wins wars. Remember the sheath is not the sword.

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 684
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #9 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 ...

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #10 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.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2014, 11:03:07 pm by Kathryn »

Offline Defend the Sacred

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3426
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #11 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.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2014, 11:04:03 pm by Kathryn »

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #12 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
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 10:01:49 am by Paul123 »

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #13 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.

 

 

 

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #14 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).