Author Topic: Echota Cherokee  (Read 118997 times)

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #150 on: October 10, 2009, 03:12:57 pm »
Through out this thread you guys keep saying things like "You just can't form a tribe". It has been said over and over in several different ways. But that still doesn't change the FACT that this has ALREADY been done. You just keep refusing to admit it by trying to convince me that they SHOULDN'T have done it.

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

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

Offline bls926

  • Posts: 655
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #151 on: October 10, 2009, 03:42:39 pm »
Through out this thread you guys keep saying things like "You just can't form a tribe". It has been said over and over in several different ways. But that still doesn't change the FACT that this has ALREADY been done. You just keep refusing to admit it by trying to convince me that they SHOULDN'T have done it.

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

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

Better than that . . . What if this group of Irish-Americans claimed to be a separate nation? Called themselves New Ireland? In essence, this is exactly what the Echota Cherokee have done. They've set themselves up as a separate nation.

Offline Defend the Sacred

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3420
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #152 on: October 10, 2009, 05:16:07 pm »
These people would only be legit in their own minds.  And I'm sure the Irish Goverment woul'dn't be too happy about it.
Better than that . . . What if this group of Irish-Americans claimed to be a separate nation? Called themselves New Ireland?

Heh, the already-existing, longstanding, Irish immigrant and Irish-American social, political and cultural clubs, and all their cousins, would march right over and kick their idiotic asses :-)


Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #154 on: October 10, 2009, 05:37:10 pm »




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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


 The definition of ignorant is:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



« Last Edit: October 10, 2009, 05:49:16 pm by Rattlebone »

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #155 on: October 10, 2009, 05:39:50 pm »
And Paul.  I'm convinced by now that there is absoutly nothing that anyone can say here in this forum that is going to convince you that the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama is not a Cherokee Tribe.  Your in complete denial.


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

Offline Defend the Sacred

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3420
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #156 on: October 10, 2009, 05:54:53 pm »
And Paul.  I'm convinced by now that there is absoutly nothing that anyone can say here in this forum that is going to convince you that the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama is not a Cherokee Tribe.  Your in complete denial.

Agreed. :-(

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #157 on: October 10, 2009, 06:45:57 pm »
And Paul.  I'm convinced by now that there is absoutly nothing that anyone can say here in this forum that is going to convince you that the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama is not a Cherokee Tribe.  Your in complete denial.


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

I also agree.

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

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

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

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

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

And lastly,,,

From here there has been no proof. only opinions and definitions. yet in your minds giveing me those IS PROOF.  If the ACIA's people answer me do anyone of you guys want me to bother to post it? or would you just pick it apart too? Hey, we could do another 10 pages on that.
 

Offline Sizzle Flambé

  • Posts: 78
    • Google profile
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #158 on: October 11, 2009, 09:30:37 am »
I came here to ask you to PROVE that they were (or were NOT) a Tribe.

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

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

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

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #159 on: October 11, 2009, 01:01:13 pm »
I came here to ask you to PROVE that they were (or were NOT) a Tribe.

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

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

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

Excellent point,,,

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

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

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 684
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #160 on: October 11, 2009, 02:20:12 pm »
Quote
From here there has been no proof. only opinions and definitions. yet in your minds giveing me those IS PROOF.  If the ACIA's people answer me do anyone of you guys want me to bother to post it? or would you just pick it apart too? Hey, we could do another 10 pages on that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For someone who says they aren't personally invested either way you sure seem determined to not see what seems obvious to others.... If you are sincere that could make you very vulnerable to be misled....
« Last Edit: October 11, 2009, 02:34:26 pm by Moma_porcupine »

Offline bls926

  • Posts: 655
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #161 on: October 11, 2009, 03:06:20 pm »
I came here to ask you to PROVE that they were (or were NOT) a Tribe.

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

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

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

Excellent point,,,

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

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


Paul, the only "childish bantering" is coming from you. We have all given you facts about what does make up a Nation/Tribe. We have given you our opinions, as well as the opinion of the three legitimate Cherokee Nations. You've ignored the facts and discount our opinions. You came here wanting to validate the Echota Cherokee of Alabama. You've got your boxers in a bunch because we wouldn't agree with you. You know, it's not that we wouldn't agree with you; it's we couldn't agree with you. To do so, we would have to ignore facts. That isn't going to happen. At best, the Echota are Cherokee descendants; that does not make them a Tribe.

Offline LittleOldMan

  • Posts: 138
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #162 on: October 11, 2009, 11:41:55 pm »
Peace and respect be to you all.  I just returned from the Native American Festival at Moundville. Al.  I was out of computer contact since last Tuesday.  I have read the last few posts since I left and whew!.  One comment first then I will relate what I discovered so far.  Fact!  Whether we, speaking corporately, consider the Echota to be a Tribe or not, the law of Alabama does.  Now the real question as I see it.  Is this an entity that I would want to associate with?  Given the facts that there will of course be people of this organization who are certifiably of Cherokee descent and that there will be also people of good intent would I join them.  Based on some of the information that I gleamed this week from a friend who was a member for over twenty years but has now moved on I would not.  When I first commented on this thread I indicated that a lot of information will  be findable as it will be in court records.  I also indicated that some must from a legal standpoint be considered as hearsay even though because of the integrity of my source I might consider it to be gospel.  What I found out this week will need to be considered as within the latter.  Please keep in mind this group was formed approximately forty years ago and way before the current hoop roar over the term "Tribe".  As I understand it the Echota was formed about forty years ago by a man and his wife who wished to honor and preserve the identity of people of Cherokee descent and the traditions of the Cherokee.  As was related to me the following has since occurred.  The current power team wrested control from the original formers.   They incorporated the Tribe and became the permanent ones in charge.  According to my source they have kept secret most if not all financial information secret and if some one questioned them they would be dismissed from the tribe.  When some wanted to build an assisted living facility on tribal land or do anything to financially assist needy members the powers stated that there was no monies available.  My source related that some how it was leaked that at that time there was over 850,000 in the bank.  Elections were held the old powers were thrown out but before things could be put to right the old powers filed suit.  Because when the old powers incorporated the tribe they were controlling stock holders the new group could not prevail.  Note: Most tribes when they incorporate, I am told,  hold the tribe separate and form a 501-3c with a separate board responsible to the tribal council.  This prevents what seems to have occurred here.  Again my source is one that I have confidence in he was a member for over twenty years but as he runs the national powwow trail was not close enough geographically to participate in tribal matters on any regular basis.  Over time he became disgusted and when he got his belly full he left.   My considered opinion is I am too old to be fooling with such a mess and would at this time recommend not to associate with them on a tribal basis.  Just too much smoke here and I don't mean smudge.  "LittleOldMan" 
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 BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #163 on: October 12, 2009, 03:52:52 am »
LOM, thanks for the response.

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

In this case, it tells me they are not a tribe.

Also. 

Quote
As was related to me the following has since occurred.  The current power team wrested control from the original formers.   They incorporated the Tribe and became the permanent ones in charge.  According to my source they have kept secret most if not all financial information secret and if some one questioned them they would be dismissed from the tribe.  When some wanted to build an assisted living facility on tribal land or do anything to financially assist needy members the powers stated that there was no monies available.


You talk a lot about Tribal Corruption.  This is good info.  However, there are many many cases that I can think of, where Tribal Council Members and even Chiefs of Federally Recognized Tribes have been involved in corruptoin and scandles of this sort and in some cases the corruption scandles are even worse then this. I woudn't associate with the Echotas as a Tribe because they are not a Tribe.  Not because a few of their Council members are alledged to be corrupt.   

Offline LittleOldMan

  • Posts: 138
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #164 on: October 12, 2009, 11:25:23 am »
BlackWolf:  I agree about the corruption.  It seems to be endemic to a lot of societies including the churches.  I was trying to separate the question of tribal legitimacy from the actions of the group.  To me the question of state tribes or Fed. tribes is all together a different situation.  What I have seen over the last few years of being involved with the powwow trail is that I have detected only occasional, very occasional, problems between Fed card carriers and State card carriers.  Last week for example we had members of the Fed tribes Blackfoot, Muskogee, Cherokee, Choctaw, Houma, plus a dozen or so state tribe affiliated members from the Southeast and some like myself non affiliated.  Any problems that I have encountered are usually related to some one copying someones craft not a BQ or tribal one.  In fact usually we are all together at one or another's  camp for pot luck and conversation.  It seems that I only encounter this argument online and of course the CNO's stance on "fake" tribes.  Why is this?  "LittleOldMan"
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.