Author Topic: Echota Cherokee  (Read 121714 times)

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #120 on: October 08, 2009, 05:26:19 pm »
" Full bloods claimed to be Black Irish ", As a Chatholic, being raised in the Chatholic faith and still a practicing Chatholic I can safely say that the term Black Irish means a Protestant Irish person. And no I'm not Irish, but have been told as a child by Nuns and other Chatholics alike what the term means.

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


Lim Lemtsh




Diana
 


I have to admit that I had never heard of the term  "Black Irish"  before today.
Edit: and neither has my wife and she IS Irish.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 05:28:01 pm by Paul123 »

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 684
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #121 on: October 08, 2009, 05:53:07 pm »
Paul
Quote
If they always existed as a Tribe no matter how large or small  (but still didn't talk about it to outsiders) then of course they should have the right to reform.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Quote
(6) Evidence must be presented that the petitioning tribe, band or group has been identified with a tribe, band or group from historical times (200 years) until the present as "American Indian" and has a currently functioning governing body based on democratic principles.

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

Based on this, it does seem that what people have repeatedly said about States often having wishy washy recognition standards , may be correct.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 06:03:00 pm by Moma_porcupine »

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #122 on: October 08, 2009, 06:43:06 pm »
These so called "black Dutch" are what I call "reluctant mulattoes". These are people who have significant African ancestry but refuse to admit it because of their own racial prejudice. I have been in a yahoogroup called the "black Dutch", the members are really into their genealogical research to try to prove that they have Indian rather than African blood. In some ways their fear of black ancestry drives them to call themselves Indians, just like to so called "black Indians" fear of their own white ancestry drives them to claim Indian ancestry. I've seen these so called "black Dutch" claiming to be some lost Mideastern people, even claiming the same nonsense as the Nuwaubians, but claiming that their "Moorish" ancestors were actually white.
The fact is that racial mixture is a fact of all slave societies. In Latin America which had a much larger indigenous population than the states and a small colonial Spanish/Portuguese population, race mixing was inevitable. The result is that many countries including Mexico and all of Central America are majority Mestizo. While in the Caribbean the majority are mulattoes i.e. Cuba, Domincan Republic and Puerto Rico.
I really wish that people could be honest about their roots, even if their ancestors weren't. I believe that much when people are able to accept who they are as being more important than who their ancestors were this will cease to be a problem. I long ago accepted that being triracial meant that I have all races in me, and none define me. I define myself, not the my ancestors.

Offline Defend the Sacred

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #123 on: October 08, 2009, 06:45:09 pm »
In Gaelic usage, "Black Irish" has nothing to do with being mixed-race or one's religion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

While among the Irish "Black Irish" does not mean mixed-race, it is a misconception I've heard multiple times in America. The English in particular compared the Irish to Africans, and Cromwell enslaved them along with the Africans in the Caribbean, so there were racist caricatures drawn of Irish people where they have more African features. This was done by people who were oppressing the Irish as well as People of Color. Google "Anti-Irish racism" for some of that. Slán.

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #124 on: October 08, 2009, 07:01:14 pm »
Paul
Quote
If they always existed as a Tribe no matter how large or small  (but still didn't talk about it to outsiders) then of course they should have the right to reform.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Quote
(6) Evidence must be presented that the petitioning tribe, band or group has been identified with a tribe, band or group from historical times (200 years) until the present as "American Indian" and has a currently functioning governing body based on democratic principles.

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

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



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

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

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

I guess I tend to lean to thinking that in the past 40ish years that if they were not who they say they are that some one would have come up with something before now but, I'm open, let's see what you come up with.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 07:32:06 pm by Paul123 »

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #125 on: October 08, 2009, 08:13:25 pm »

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

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


Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 684
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #126 on: October 08, 2009, 08:17:02 pm »
Quote
So when I ask if we are questioning their their legitimacy, linage, their sovereignty or the State of Alabama's wisdom that your answer is both their linage and the State of Alabama's wisdom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 08:23:06 pm by Moma_porcupine »

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #127 on: October 08, 2009, 08:22:24 pm »
But my question is if these people are paper NDNS. Then how do you see members of the Echota Tribe?  The people you call paper NDNS are recognzied by their Tribal Goverments. In the case of the Echota members.  Not only are they not recognized by any Tribal goverment, they have been away from a Cherokee communitiy for over 200 years ( as opposed to the recent past of the enrolled Cherokees).  And it seems your calling certain NDNS paper indians becaue of their disconnection from their Tribal Communities.  So what would that make members of the Echota Tribe?  You can't even say the Echotas are paper NDNS if no Tribal Goverment recognizes them.  So if paper NDNS are only NDNS on paper, then what would the Echotas be?  In other words it seems your saying, that without a card, paper NDNS wouldnt' be NDNS.  So then, what would that make the Echotas with neither a Tribal Goveremnt, nor any visibel culture or heritage to fall back on other then family legends of Cherokee ancestry.  So are the Echotas NDNS in your mind?  

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #128 on: October 08, 2009, 08:26:11 pm »


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

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

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

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



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

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

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you asking for information on the Echota Tribe of Alabama. It is my understanding that in order for a Tribe to be State certified that they have to provide evidence that the petitioning tribe, band or group has been identified with a tribe, band or group from historical times (200 years) until the present as "American Indian" and has a currently functioning governing body based on democratic principles. Would it be possible to find this evidence for the Echota Tribe? or could you point me to where I could find this?

 

Thank You
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 09:00:32 pm by Paul123 »

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #129 on: October 08, 2009, 08:41:08 pm »
 
 ........ So are the Echotas NDNS in your mind?  


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

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

Edit:
45 C.F.R. §96.44(b):

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


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

Unless of course an answer to my question to the ACIA says different.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 12:35:06 am by Paul123 »

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #130 on: October 08, 2009, 09:16:34 pm »
If you are suggesting that a well known racist Dawes had the final say on who is and who isn't an Indian, I simply can't accept that. Don't you believe that some folks were left off the rolls because they had more black ancestry than white or Indian. Dawes was a product of his times, and hating former slaves was something he shared with the former Cherokee masters, was part of those time.
The fact that the CNO held black slaves meant that they shared his prejudices. So now you have a combination of a white racist Dawes representing a white racist government, following the "lead" of former slave owners and traitors to the Union. Really and you are going to suggest that racism wasn't a motive. You should be black for a day!
As I have said, I joined the Echota out of respect for my grandmother. I don't identify with them, because I believe that many hold racist views, like their non Indian neighbours. Having seen the uproar over the freedmen, I am glad that I don't identify with the CNO. Having seen the vile racism coming from the CNO and white racists with CNO membership like Mike Graham, who makes the KKK look like liberals. I don't want or need to identify with a group of mostly white people who claim to be Indian because a white racist put their ancestors names on a list.
I am a historian and an anti racist activist, I have done my research. Dawes et al believed that as long as those Indians who had power were more white than Indians that Indians would soon disappear. The CNO is a good example of just how accurate he was. I have no doubt that there are far more Indians than those enrolled in federal tribes.
Believe me if any other ethnic group had to prove what their long lost ancestors were to be citizens of the US almost everyone would be an illegal immigrant...

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #131 on: October 08, 2009, 11:08:35 pm »
Quote
If you are suggesting that a well known racist Dawes had the final say on who is and who isn't an Indian, I simply can't accept that.

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

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

I haven't researched this so much.  But I beleive your right.  Its unfortunate, but it happened.  Many Freedmen were most likely denied to be enrolled as Cherokee by blood.    The problem now is its hard to prove anything over a hundred years later. Freedmen who may have Cherokee blood are now in the same situation as a great number of people in the South East. 

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #132 on: October 08, 2009, 11:17:09 pm »
Quote
The fact that the CNO held black slaves meant that they shared his prejudices.


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

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

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

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #133 on: October 08, 2009, 11:23:16 pm »
Quote
Believe me if any other ethnic group had to prove what their long lost ancestors were to be citizens of the US almost everyone would be an illegal immigrant...

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

But as far as nations go, I'd like to see you enter the United States without a US passport.  Thats why we have to prove we are US citizens, because we are Citiziens of a Soverign Nation.  Same goes for NDNs who are citizesn of a Soverign Nations.  And thats what our cards are all about.

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #134 on: October 09, 2009, 12:01:06 am »
I'd like to see you enter the United States without a US passport. 


OK I just want to be funny here... If ya wanna see that just go to the Tex/Mex border at 2:00 am and watch,,,,,,  ;D ;D