Author Topic: Echota Cherokee  (Read 121741 times)

Offline Defend the Sacred

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #105 on: October 01, 2009, 11:49:06 pm »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powhatan_Tribe

I don't know enough about the history of that area to judge the contents of the article myself, but as for the article in general: Information on Wikipedia is only as reliable as the sources cited, and the people writing the article. This article cites zero sources, and the main writer has a username that shows a significant probability of Conflict of Interest. If they can cite it to solid, verifiable, reliable sources, it's another story. But right now it's no more reliable (or unreliable) than an opinion piece or blog post by an anonymous individual.

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #106 on: October 02, 2009, 01:20:56 am »
Quote
BW,
Thanks for the links,,,,Way cool,,,  that was a gold mine for my family tree research. I have found 3 full families and about 4 individual people on those rolls. You wouldn't happen to have a link to the Henderson rolls would you? I can't seem to find a list of names for it like this roll you posted has?

I couldn't find the Henderson roll online.  Thats the roll taken of Cherokees who were to be removed to Oklahoma.  

I think you can may be able to get copies from the National Archives.  Here's a good site for people researching their NDN ancestry
http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/heritage/native-american/ancestor-search.html
And I beleive you can get copies of of the Henderson Roll here for a fee.
http://www.cherokeeroots.com/
And another good site for Cherokee geneology.
http://www.cherokeeheritage.org/cherokeeheritage/genealogy.html

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #107 on: October 02, 2009, 01:34:08 am »
The first major census of Cherokees living in North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee taken by the Federal government was compiled from June-December, 1835 and is generally called the Henderson Roll. The roll, which only lists the name of the head of each family,and an index to it have been reproduced as National Archives Microfilm Publication T496.

Offline LittleOldMan

  • Posts: 138
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #108 on: October 02, 2009, 02:53:30 am »
FYI.  Toney Al. is located northwest of Huntsville Al. and approximately seven to ten miles south of the Tenn. State Line.  It is also fifteen to twenty miles northwest of the intersection of US 231 and the Tenn River adjacent to  Ditto's Landing a major jumping off place for the "Trail of Tears".  It is very conceivable that this tale could have some truth in it. Location would be reasonable and that side of the river was Cherokee land.  I will keep this in mind as research continues.  I will be working the annual Native American Festival held each year at Mound State Park Moundville Al. 10/7,8,9,10.  down close to Tuscaloosa.  This is a four day event geared to educational purposes.  Alabama indigenous Tribes are spotlighted.  Demo's on pottery,flint  knapping, stick ball (lacross),and other aspects of the history and lives of the early people of Al. Last year we were getting as many as 45 busloads of kids each day from all over the state.  Wish me luck I sometimes wonder if I am getting to old for 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.

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #109 on: October 02, 2009, 09:15:11 am »
FYI.  Toney Al. is located northwest of Huntsville Al. and approximately seven to ten miles south of the Tenn. State Line.  It is also fifteen to twenty miles northwest of the intersection of US 231 and the Tenn River adjacent to  Ditto's Landing a major jumping off place for the "Trail of Tears".  It is very conceivable that this tale could have some truth in it. Location would be reasonable and that side of the river was Cherokee land.  I will keep this in mind as research continues.  I will be working the annual Native American Festival held each year at Mound State Park Moundville Al. 10/7,8,9,10.  down close to Tuscaloosa.  This is a four day event geared to educational purposes.  Alabama indigenous Tribes are spotlighted.  Demo's on pottery,flint  knapping, stick ball (lacross),and other aspects of the history and lives of the early people of Al. Last year we were getting as many as 45 busloads of kids each day from all over the state.  Wish me luck I sometimes wonder if I am getting to old for this? "LittleOldMan"

45 buss loads of screaming little nippers per day,
Well then your going to need it ,,,, GOOD LUCK.

I wanted to go there this year, but I already burned up all of my vacation days.
Perhaps you can glean a lot of info about this Tribe while your there.

Offline Defend the Sacred

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #110 on: October 02, 2009, 11:29:05 pm »
Perhaps you can glean a lot of info about this Tribe while your there.

Doesn't look like a tribe. It appears this guy was just talking about his family, and making a variety of very odd claims. People from the area, including someone who says they're from the Toney family, have said almost none of the info in that article, aside from the fact there's a cemetery, is credible.

Offline LittleOldMan

  • Posts: 138
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #111 on: October 03, 2009, 02:41:08 am »
Perhaps I was not clear the Native American Festival is an annual one put on by the Mound State Park at Moundville, Al. It highlights all the historic Tribes from this area from the Archaic through to the removal.  It is billed as an educational experience and geared mostly for grades 1 through 9.  There will be approximately 20 to 30 vendors and about the same amount of demos from grinding corn to making pots over an open fire.  It is not set up as a powwow would be.  That is no sacred circle etc. There will be story telling and flute playing.  Usually Billy Whitefox is there, NAMBI winner couple of years ago.    "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 Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #112 on: October 03, 2009, 11:29:30 am »
My bad,,, I looked at the location and glanced at the dates.  The event I was thinking that you were going to is on the 16th, 17th and 18th the weekend AFTER your visit there.
So sorry.  :-[
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 11:33:49 am by Paul123 »

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #113 on: October 08, 2009, 02:17:29 pm »
I was searching the web for info on this "Black Dutch" thing and how it ties into the Echota Tribe and found this:

On the Museum wall of The Oakville Mounds Park & Museum" in Moulton, Alabama:  

"Before the Indian Removal Act in 1830, many of Lawrence County's Cherokee people were already mixed with white settlers and stayed in the country of the Warrior Mountains. They denied their ancestry and basically lived much of their lives in fear of being sent West. Full bloods claimed to be Black Irish or Black Dutch, thus denying their rightful Indian blood. After being fully assimilated into the general population years later, these Irish Cherokee mixed blood descendants, began reclaiming their Indian heritage in the land of the Warrior Mountains, Lawrence County, Alabama. During the 1900 U.S. Census only 78 people claimed their Indian heritage. In 1990, more than 2000 individuals claimed Indian descent. Today more than 4000 citizens are proud to claim their Indian heritage and are members of the Echota Cherokee's tribe."


Source citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Dutch#cite_note-crane-5


I don't know if this Oakville Mounds Park & Museum" in Moulton, Alabama is or is not the same place that LOM is going. I now think that they are different places. He (LOM) said that he going to the Mound State Park at Moundville, Al.

I think I first misunderstood that these two places were the same place.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 02:21:28 pm by Paul123 »

Offline taraverti

  • Posts: 82
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #114 on: October 08, 2009, 02:22:48 pm »
I always thought that Black Dutch referred to people of mixed ancestry, although I suppose there is no reason why full-bloods could not have called themselves Black Dutch. Hard to think anyone would have bought it though.

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #115 on: October 08, 2009, 02:28:44 pm »
It's been a very interesting leg of my research.
By all means go read the wiki article on this and /or other links about this "Black Dutch" issue.

Offline taraverti

  • Posts: 82
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #116 on: October 08, 2009, 03:07:48 pm »
I've researched it before. It's part of my family history too. From several different directions.

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 684
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #117 on: October 08, 2009, 03:40:12 pm »
I have a friend who's grandpa was born in Holland and he was said to be "Black Dutch". Supposedly he looks like he may have had African ancestry. So I believe this can refer to people descended from a number of racial groups besides American Indian...

A personal story from an anonoymous person shouldn't carry a lot of wieght, but I think people should do some research before assuming "Black Dutch" or "Black Irish" means mixed with NDN.

Reply #71 on: September 29, 2009,
   
Quote

Quote
Quote from: BlackWolf


 Many NDNS and/or their families for economic and/or relocation and other reasons were forced to leave their respective communities in the not to distant past.  I would never say that these people and their childeren weren't NDN.  I would just say that they were Indians who are disconnected both spiritually and culturally from their Tribe.  Big difference.

Paul1234
So just what is that "Big Difference"?
 that it happened in 1938 instead of 1838? Grin

The difference seems really obvious ...... the people who formed a "new" tribe in 1838, came directly from the old tribe that existed in 1837- 1830. There was no 3 or 4 generations of living outside of a culturally strong Cherokee community.

How I see things, those 3 or 4 generations are a really big difference Paul. 
Paul quoting from an Alabama museum...
Quote
many of Lawrence County's Cherokee people were already mixed with white settlers

Quote
After being fully assimilated into the general population years later, these Irish Cherokee mixed blood descendants, began reclaiming their Indian heritage

Paul

Reading what you write makes me wonder about how you see things.

I see where your main point seems to be to repeatedly try to point out that there was some individuals who had Cherokee ancestry who left descendents who aren't being allowed to enroll in any of the 3 federally recognized Cherokee Nations.  This is a straw man argument . We all agree these individuals do exist. That isn't the point of contention.

What does seem to be the point of contention is if many generations have passed since these people were recognized as a visible community having a collective identity as Cherokee, should these individuals should be able to get together with other descendents and declare themselves a tribe?
   
1.Do you see any difference between a few individuals who have some Native descent, who live in a community with a few other families ( possibly cousins ) who also have some Native descent , but these families have been fully assimilated into the non native community for generations, and a tribe which has maintained it's collective cultural and political identity as visibly and demonstrably distinct from the surrounding non native population?

2. If a family has intermarried and has passed as non native for more than two generations , in other words, has been fully assimilated into the surrounding non native community, and these families can prove they have some Cherokee ancestry , do you believe these families should be able to get together with other people of some distant Cherokee ancestry and declare themselves a sovriegn Nation?

3. If you believe Cherokee descendents should under some conditions be able to  form a new tribe,  or reform an old one, and they shouldn't other times , could you explain where you personally would draw the line ?


« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 03:48:22 pm by Moma_porcupine »

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #118 on: October 08, 2009, 05:16:47 pm »


Paul

Reading what you write makes me wonder about how you see things.

I see where your main point seems to be to repeatedly try to point out that there was some individuals who had Cherokee ancestry who left descendents who aren't being allowed to enroll in any of the 3 federally recognized Cherokee Nations.  This is a straw man argument . We all agree these individuals do exist. That isn't the point of contention.

What does seem to be the point of contention is if many generations have passed since these people were recognized as a visible community having a collective identity as Cherokee, should these individuals should be able to get together with other descendents and declare themselves a tribe?
   
1.Do you see any difference between a few individuals who have some Native descent, who live in a community with a few other families ( possibly cousins ) who also have some Native descent , but these families have been fully assimilated into the non native community for generations, and a tribe which has maintained it's collective cultural and political identity as visibly and demonstrably distinct from the surrounding non native population?

2. If a family has intermarried and has passed as non native for more than two generations , in other words, has been fully assimilated into the surrounding non native community, and these families can prove they have some Cherokee ancestry , do you believe these families should be able to get together with other people of some distant Cherokee ancestry and declare themselves a sovriegn Nation?

3. If you believe Cherokee descendents should under some conditions be able to  form a new tribe,  or reform an old one, and they shouldn't other times , could you explain where you personally would draw the line ?


Well first of all,, I get damned confused as to how I see things,,,

To try (poorly) to address what seems to be the point of contention:
<if many generations have passed since these people were recognized as a visible community having a collective identity as Cherokee...>

I question just who needed to recognize them. (others or themselves).
If it is themselves, and they just didn't talk about it from fear. Then Perhaps when the times changed to where it is safe then it maybe OK. 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. And /or change their name. After all the CNO changed their name from "The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma" to "The Cherokee Nation" not to long ago.

Your point #1:
Yes of course I see that. I haven't decided (read that as,, been convinced)  just which of these 2 choices the Echota's fall under.

Your point #2:
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?

Your point #3:
Where I personally would draw the line ?
That's a tough one,
Jokingly I would have to say if they only have a P.O. Box for tribal land...
 then not just NO but, Hell NO...

I think if the Tribe in question has good documentation of their long standing history (ie: the Lumbee) Then of course. In this discussion of the Echotas I was hoping that they were one such Tribe. At this point I'm not sure. I do see both sides of the discussion.

On the one hand it looks like they fall under the points you made under point #2.

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. 

Again I would point out that they (the Echotas) have already done this many years ago when they got State recognition some 40ish years ago. So are we questioning their their legitimacy, linage, their sovereignty or the State of Alabama's wisdom?

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). Along with the Fed. recognized Tribes, as a kinship perhaps. sorta like the relationship between the Eastern Band and the CNO. I don't think that this Echota Tribe wants anything from the CNO, but it would be nice if they could call each other "Brother". But this is just MY thoughts, I speak for no one except myself.




Offline Diana

  • Posts: 382
  • I Love YaBB 2!
Re: Echota Cherokee
« Reply #119 on: October 08, 2009, 05:20:56 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