Author Topic: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters  (Read 29986 times)

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #105 on: November 09, 2009, 06:25:04 PM »
Moma_porcupine said
Quote
I can see why the real Cherokee people say it isn't likely for someone of Cherokee descent to be unable to prove it, as there are so many records and lists.

Yes, the Cherokees are probably the most documented of all the Indian Tribes in the United States.  Also, the Dawes and Baker Rolls are just one of many as there were many other Cherokee Rolls and censuses.  Here are a few I found listed online.
http://www.allthingscherokee.com/articles_gene_070101.html

I always here the story. ("My ancestor didn’t sign no rolls", "my ancestors hid out", "my ancestors were adopted", and my favorite, “the papers were burned in a fire”).  These explanations are for the most part baseless. 

Moma_porcupnine, you are one of a very few on this site that seems to be asking the same questions I and others have asked about this phenomena of being “part Cherokee” in America.  It seems to be generally accepted on this site to accept the fact that one is actually of “distant Indian ancestry”.  Part of my post is intended to challenge that whole assumption.  For reasons I mentioned before, and for ones that you elaborated on in your post are the reason for this. Your recent post about how these people who “Claim Cherokee/Indian heritage” would of course have more than “1” Cherokee ancestor speaks for itself. Your post on how “1” Cherokee grandparent would logically have “2” Cherokee Great Grandparents, etc, etc. is simple logic many overlook.   

I’ll say it again.  Many people that claim distant Indian ancestry, are not in fact of “Distant Indian ancestry”.  And by these people NOT being challenged on their claims, only embolden them more, and in a way, it helps them to validate themselves.  Some people often say “why are Native Americans” the only ethnic group that has to prove their heritage”.  Well, this is quite obvious as to why.  And it has to do with the lines that overlap between, race, ethnicity, and political citizenship.  There are Tribes such as the Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, etc who have members and citizens who only possess a small fraction of Indian blood.  So, we cannot tell that they are NDN just by physical appearance.  So being Indian is a combination of race (in the sense of having Indian blood, but not necessarily being wholly racially Indian, ethnicity, and political citizenship.  Our proof of our political citizenship proves our heritage, which is especially important for enrolled members with low BQs. 

The Cherokee Nation has a policy of not questioning people’s claims of Cherokee heritage.  I would counter that this needs to be done.  The burden is on them.  If you’re not an enrolled member of a Federally Recognized Cherokee/Indian Tribe, then the burden is on you.  We don’t know who you are, or what your story is!  So Grandmas stories don’t cut it anymore.  There ARE other ways to validate someone’s story without being enrolled however, and there are a number of ways to do this.  But I’m sorry; this is how it should be.  The burden of Proof is on you!  It may be your inherent right to self identify however you want, yes.  But IT IS OUR inherent right to question those who claim to be us! 



Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #106 on: November 09, 2009, 07:41:37 PM »
But IT IS OUR inherent right to question those who claim to be us! 

I had a woman who stepped in and lived my life.  Took it from me, it is a long complicated story that I won't go into.  But the way I felt, I can never explain to anyone, there are no words. 

And I think you all have every right to question anyone who is claiming to be 'you'. 
press the little black on silver arrow Music, 1) Bob Pietkivitch Buddha Feet http://www.4shared.com/file/114179563/3697e436/BuddhaFeet.html

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1161
    • Standing Rock Tourism
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #107 on: November 09, 2009, 10:18:34 PM »
Moma_porcupine said
Quote
I can see why the real Cherokee people say it isn't likely for someone of Cherokee descent to be unable to prove it, as there are so many records and lists.

Yes, the Cherokees are probably the most documented of all the Indian Tribes in the United States.  Also, the Dawes and Baker Rolls are just one of many as there were many other Cherokee Rolls and censuses.  Here are a few I found listed online.
http://www.allthingscherokee.com/articles_gene_070101.html

I always here the story. ("My ancestor didn’t sign no rolls", "my ancestors hid out", "my ancestors were adopted", and my favorite, “the papers were burned in a fire”).  These explanations are for the most part baseless. 

Moma_porcupnine, you are one of a very few on this site that seems to be asking the same questions I and others have asked about this phenomena of being “part Cherokee” in America.  It seems to be generally accepted on this site to accept the fact that one is actually of “distant Indian ancestry”.  Part of my post is intended to challenge that whole assumption.  For reasons I mentioned before, and for ones that you elaborated on in your post are the reason for this. Your recent post about how these people who “Claim Cherokee/Indian heritage” would of course have more than “1” Cherokee ancestor speaks for itself. Your post on how “1” Cherokee grandparent would logically have “2” Cherokee Great Grandparents, etc, etc. is simple logic many overlook.   

I’ll say it again.  Many people that claim distant Indian ancestry, are not in fact of “Distant Indian ancestry”.  And by these people NOT being challenged on their claims, only embolden them more, and in a way, it helps them to validate themselves.  Some people often say “why are Native Americans” the only ethnic group that has to prove their heritage”.  Well, this is quite obvious as to why.  And it has to do with the lines that overlap between, race, ethnicity, and political citizenship.  There are Tribes such as the Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, etc who have members and citizens who only possess a small fraction of Indian blood.  So, we cannot tell that they are NDN just by physical appearance.  So being Indian is a combination of race (in the sense of having Indian blood, but not necessarily being wholly racially Indian, ethnicity, and political citizenship.  Our proof of our political citizenship proves our heritage, which is especially important for enrolled members with low BQs. 

The Cherokee Nation has a policy of not questioning people’s claims of Cherokee heritage.  I would counter that this needs to be done.  The burden is on them.  If you’re not an enrolled member of a Federally Recognized Cherokee/Indian Tribe, then the burden is on you.  We don’t know who you are, or what your story is!  So Grandmas stories don’t cut it anymore.  There ARE other ways to validate someone’s story without being enrolled however, and there are a number of ways to do this.  But I’m sorry; this is how it should be.  The burden of Proof is on you!  It may be your inherent right to self identify however you want, yes.  But IT IS OUR inherent right to question those who claim to be us! 




Black Wolf I agree with you as people call the tribe here with the long list of stories about grandma said or grandma looks like or they said I tell them they have to prove it to me that they belong to my people. For us they kept document ration list to census
In Spirit

Offline Ric_Richardson

  • Posts: 248
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #108 on: November 09, 2009, 11:00:23 PM »
Tansi;

As my deceased uncle said, "every time a Native person is born, two anthropologists are trained."

We are some of the most researched and documented people in North America, so it should always be possible for people, claiming Aboriginal heritage, to be able to prove it, with some effort.

Ric

Offline Moma_porcupine

  • Posts: 690
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #109 on: November 10, 2009, 01:49:31 PM »
Ric Richardson
Quote
We are some of the most researched and documented people in North America, so it should always be possible for people, claiming Aboriginal heritage, to be able to prove it, with some effort.

Here is a situation in Canada I came across when I was researching the Acadian Metis . Up in Newfoundland the canadian government is granting full status and federal recognition to people they are calling the founding members of a new Mi'kmaq First Nation, without requiring  proof beyond a doubt.

http://www.qalipu.com/m_faqs.asp
 
Quote
13. Do I have to prove beyond a doubt that I am a descendant of an aboriginal person?

No, but the more information you have to prove this, the stronger your application to be included on the Founding Members list—but you are not required to prove it “beyond a doubt.” The Enrolment Committee will be directed to consider whether you are a descendant of an aboriginal person on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the committee must be satisfied that it is “more likely than unlikely” that you are a descendant of such a person.

I wonder what they mean when they say people don't have to prove this beyond a doubt? Is there some reason the Native people in this area sometimes can't prove their lines of descent? Or has the canadian goverment decided to create new First Nations even when there is reasonable doubts about whether or not some ( or all ? ) of the members are of any Native descent? ( there is no limit on how far back this alleged ancestry can be either) I wonder how they wiegh the probabilities to see what the balance is? What objective criteria are they using to wiegh this? If someone in canada has figuered out how to wiegh probablities, that would be interesting and useful to know.  Assuming they have this figured out.

Seeing some of the Mohawk people complaining about the canadian governemt setting up fake tribes in order to displace legitimate Aboringinal title, some of the precedents here make me wonder...

http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news/singlenews.php?lang=en&layout
=mnn&category=58&newsnr=557&backurl=%2Fnews%2Fnews4.php%3Flang%3Den


I wonder if there is some particular circumstances in this area of canada that make this policey make sense?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 02:08:40 PM by Moma_porcupine »

Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #110 on: November 10, 2009, 06:55:14 PM »
I wonder, if by doing this, they will in the long run make the 'First Nations'  moot and invalid since it will be flooded with confused peoples.  To me, that seems to be the only reason for doing this. 
press the little black on silver arrow Music, 1) Bob Pietkivitch Buddha Feet http://www.4shared.com/file/114179563/3697e436/BuddhaFeet.html

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 151
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #111 on: November 11, 2009, 12:26:14 AM »
Not to interrupt the direction that this thread has taken but, I will toss this bit of a doc that I found in here for discussion.

quote:
Over the years, Congress often has included state-recognized tribes within legislation applying to federally recognized tribes.  Congress has subjected non-federally recognized tribes to Maine law and extinguished their claims to land within the State,  authorized state-recognized tribes to participate in Indian housing programs and Indian education programs,  included state-recognized tribes within the protections provided by the Indian Arts and Crafts Act,  protected state-recognized tribes’ lands from alienation,  authorized the Department of Agriculture to include tribes with state reservations for various programs,   and authorized members of state recognized tribes to receive services from the Indian Health Service.

Conclusion:
I know that a lot of folks don't like the idea of State tribes, but the simple fact is that they are recognized tribes, by their State and as such the Fed Gov. also sees them as such.

Many people bring up their slack requirements for enrollment, but as the Cherokee Nation well knows, Tribes have the sovereign right to set it's own policies with regards to enrollment requirements. Just ask Chad Smith, the Freeman or Obama.
Others will pick apart their cultural presentations (ie. pow wow regalia, dance moves and such),
So what... They set what they do within their own rights as a Tribe not based on other Tribes. each Tribe does things differently no matter if they are a Fed. Tribe or not.
I have also seen discussions about the State's requirements to recognize a Tribe. To this I find nothing in any Fed code that requires a State to have anything more that a procedure in place in order to determine them to be a Tribe. There is absolutely nothing in the codes that says how they do this but after it is done then,, IT IS DONE, They ARE a Tribe.
And not to leave out the part about a person from France moving to the USA and establishing a new France,,, To this I will point out the some what new Nations that are "brake aways" from other Nations such as the Republic of Georgia from the USSR (and a ton of other Yugoslavian/Baltic Nations) are no different than a State Tribe that broke away from the Cherokee Nation.  When, (how long ago or how recently) the break and/or reformation has nothing to do with it as long as it still falls within the requirements of the State that is extending the recognition. In recent years, The Keetoowah gained Fed recognition before the Cherokee Nation did, but that doesn't mean that the Cherokee Nation is any less of a Tribe than any other. Like it or not that is the same for the State Tribes too...

Disclaimer:
Personally I have made a choice to align with the Satellite community of the Cherokee Nation. However,,, I still see the legal legitimacy of State Tribes.  And acknowledge their sovereign rights to do things as they wish.  And if you didn't notice,,, I didn't say anything about the tons of Fake tribes that have NO  recognition... I say , Run the bums out of town,,, but before you do that, Take the time to research them. And I don't mean an internet web search.    
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 12:35:12 AM by Paul123 »

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #112 on: November 11, 2009, 01:26:36 AM »
Quote
Many people bring up their slack requirements for enrollment, but as the Cherokee Nation well knows, Tribes have the sovereign right to set it's own policies with regards to enrollment requirements.


That is, if a Tribe is actually a Tribe.  I do agree with the second part of what you say Paul123 "Tribes have the sovereign right to set it's own policies with regards to enrollment requirements".  However, I think this question has already been answered for most of us as to the legitimacy of most of these so called Tribes.   


http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2344.0

Quote
Others will pick apart their cultural presentations (ie. pow wow regalia, dance moves and such),

Yes, and with good reason.  They are mocking our ancestors.







Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #113 on: November 11, 2009, 01:39:13 AM »
Quote
They set what they do within their own rights as a Tribe not based on other Tribes. each Tribe does things differently no matter if they are a Fed. Tribe or not.


Actually, what they are doing (in the case of the fake Cherokee Tribes), is they are stealing the name, history and heritage of the Cherokee people.  In many cases they are fabricating their own twisted HIstories of what they think Cherokee History is or should be.  What most of them do, is they take strerotypical Hollywood images, names and ideas of what they think Indians are.  ( They know nothing of Cherokees, becauce their whole idenity is fabricated.  Not to mention the fact that there is no "generic Indian" culture.  These people are nothing more then clowns.  They should be ashamed of themselves!  In my opinion, they are nothing more then a disgrace, and have made a mockery of a proud people.   

To say that they just "do things differently" is really incredible Paul123.

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 253
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #114 on: November 11, 2009, 01:40:56 AM »
Not to interrupt the direction that this thread has taken but, I will toss this bit of a doc that I found in here for discussion.

quote:
Over the years, Congress often has included state-recognized tribes within legislation applying to federally recognized tribes.  Congress has subjected non-federally recognized tribes to Maine law and extinguished their claims to land within the State,  authorized state-recognized tribes to participate in Indian housing programs and Indian education programs,  included state-recognized tribes within the protections provided by the Indian Arts and Crafts Act,  protected state-recognized tribes’ lands from alienation,  authorized the Department of Agriculture to include tribes with state reservations for various programs,   and authorized members of state recognized tribes to receive services from the Indian Health Service.

Conclusion:
I know that a lot of folks don't like the idea of State tribes, but the simple fact is that they are recognized tribes, by their State and as such the Fed Gov. also sees them as such.

Many people bring up their slack requirements for enrollment, but as the Cherokee Nation well knows, Tribes have the sovereign right to set it's own policies with regards to enrollment requirements. Just ask Chad Smith, the Freeman or Obama.
Others will pick apart their cultural presentations (ie. pow wow regalia, dance moves and such),
So what... They set what they do within their own rights as a Tribe not based on other Tribes. each Tribe does things differently no matter if they are a Fed. Tribe or not.
I have also seen discussions about the State's requirements to recognize a Tribe. To this I find nothing in any Fed code that requires a State to have anything more that a procedure in place in order to determine them to be a Tribe. There is absolutely nothing in the codes that says how they do this but after it is done then,, IT IS DONE, They ARE a Tribe.
And not to leave out the part about a person from France moving to the USA and establishing a new France,,, To this I will point out the some what new Nations that are "brake aways" from other Nations such as the Republic of Georgia from the USSR (and a ton of other Yugoslavian/Baltic Nations) are no different than a State Tribe that broke away from the Cherokee Nation.  When, (how long ago or how recently) the break and/or reformation has nothing to do with it as long as it still falls within the requirements of the State that is extending the recognition. In recent years, The Keetoowah gained Fed recognition before the Cherokee Nation did, but that doesn't mean that the Cherokee Nation is any less of a Tribe than any other. Like it or not that is the same for the State Tribes too...

Disclaimer:
Personally I have made a choice to align with the Satellite community of the Cherokee Nation. However,,, I still see the legal legitimacy of State Tribes.  And acknowledge their sovereign rights to do things as they wish.  And if you didn't notice,,, I didn't say anything about the tons of Fake tribes that have NO  recognition... I say , Run the bums out of town,,, but before you do that, Take the time to research them. And I don't mean an internet web search.    


Quote
Over the years, Congress often has included state-recognized tribes within legislation applying to federally recognized tribes.  Congress has subjected non-federally recognized tribes to Maine law and extinguished their claims to land within the State,  authorized state-recognized tribes to participate in Indian housing programs and Indian education programs,  included state-recognized tribes within the protections provided by the Indian Arts and Crafts Act,  protected state-recognized tribes’ lands from alienation,  authorized the Department of Agriculture to include tribes with state reservations for various programs,   and authorized members of state recognized tribes to receive services from the Indian Health Service.

 You are most likely comparing apples to oranges here and because they are both fruit, declaring them the same thing.

 In cases such as the tribes in Maine, they are most likely like many hundreds of NDN bands in California and the thousands of their members. In these cases the people are mostly NDN by blood if not full blooded.

 I have already pointed this out to you in one thread, in which it was pointed out that they were recognized as NDN for certain things, but not for some things. Typically of course tribes and people that fall under these categories are undeniably NDN, raised as such, and are culturally of their said tribe.

 On the other end of the spectrum you have these bogus tribes popping up in mostly the Southeast who have next to no proof they are who they say they are, and are as NON NDN by blood as they are lacking in the cultural of the people they claim to allegedly come from.

 
Quote
I know that a lot of folks don't like the idea of State tribes, but the simple fact is that they are recognized tribes, by their State and as such the Fed Gov. also sees them as such

 If that were true in the sense you are trying to present things here, then why are they to get federally recognized?

 The federal government does not recognize them, and they do not fall under the same category as those tribes in Maine in which you are trying compare them to.

 I think the tribes in Maine who are state recognized would possibly be similar to that of the Lumbee, but probably more NDN by blood, and have more of their original culture. Both the state and the feds realize the Lumbee are NDN, but they do not have full status.

 Can we say that about the Echota or most so called "state tribes?" No, we obviously can not.

Quote
Many people bring up their slack requirements for enrollment, but as the Cherokee Nation well knows, Tribes have the sovereign right to set it's own policies with regards to enrollment requirements. Just ask Chad Smith

 Again, you are trying to compare apples to oranges here. Chad Smith is a elected tribal leader of a tribal government that has had government to government relationship with the United States since historic times. It has been in existence since time immemorial and has inherent sovereignty.

 Being that inherent sovereign means having always been sovereign, there is no comparison between them and a  faux state tribe seeking recognition that had never existed as a tribe historically or otherwise.


Quote
Others will pick apart their cultural presentations (ie. pow wow regalia, dance moves and such),
So what...

 What?

 Powwows do not count as tribal culture, and neither does their dance moves. Though the dances and regalia is based on traditional things of certain tribes, you can have a Miwok woman from California dancing jingle style which is a dance that originated in the northeast.

 Though they do have some real spiritual aspects to them, and some historical attributes that tie into that spiritual nature, they are however commercial in nature today for the most part.

 It seems to me that you are insinuating here that somebody claiming to be an Echota Cherokee could take on Fancy Dancing since they have no clue about traditional Cherokee dances, and then adopt Fancy Dancing as "part of their culture."

 In that respect I could say I am Irish, and take on dances that originated in Russia since Russians are Caucasian same as the Irish since I know no Irish dances. They start my own little Ireland here and use Russian culture I borrowed from going to commercially bases Russian dance sessions.

It simply does not work that way.........


Quote
They set what they do within their own rights as a Tribe not based on other Tribes.

 Though this statement by you was in conjunction with your statements about dances and what not, I chose to separate it.

 Legitimate and historical tribes generally do not need to adopt the dances from others, and especially those dances found at powwows. This is even if their traditional dances and culture has been severely damaged by the forces of assimilation and wars/disease of the past.

Quote
I have also seen discussions about the State's requirements to recognize a Tribe. To this I find nothing in any Fed code that requires a State to have anything more that a procedure in place in order to determine them to be a Tribe. There is absolutely nothing in the codes that says how they do this but after it is done then,, IT IS DONE, They ARE a Tribe.

 Maybe when you engage in this conversation next time, you will have researched the separation of powers in the United States government and realized that federal power is above state power.

 That in mind I must point out that federally recognized tribes are historic tribes have inherent sovereignty because they have always existed. This as already pointed out, is very much unlike most faux state tribes. By definition they are domestic dependent nations, and therefore in the separation of powers within the United States government, are higher then that of the states themselves.

 So that in mind, a state such Alabama recognizing the existence of a tribe makes about as much sense as Alabama trying to recognize a break away republic in the former Soviet Union. States are below both tribal and federal government in the separation of powers within the United States government.
 
Quote
To this I will point out the some what new Nations that are "brake aways" from other Nations such as the Republic of Georgia from the USSR (and a ton of other Yugoslavian/Baltic Nations) are no different than a State Tribe that broke away from the Cherokee Nation

 This analogy fails you in every way Paul.

 First and foremost some of those "break away Republics" were nations that too have always existed to some degree or another, and at one time had been invaded by either Russia or later the Soviets and taken over much like tribal nations here. I see no difference in that situation to be honest.

 Secondly the people involved in these republics actual people and ethnic groups, with actual cultures they too have practiced since time immemorial in most cases.

 On both counts, this is very much NOT like the situation with your state tribes. They are typically people with zero cultural awareness of the people they claim to be, and ethnically practically entirely something else as well.

 So instead of them being like Armenians who had a nation of their own in times past, and always their own culture; they are mostly something else both culturally and by blood and yet you think they are the same.

Quote
The Keetoowah gained Fed recognition before the Cherokee Nation did, but that doesn't mean that the Cherokee Nation is any less of a Tribe than any other. Like it or not that is the same for the State Tribes too...  

 Both people are a proven historic tribe, and had one time been politically the exact same thing. In both cases they are an actual people that have mountains of evidence to prove that fact.

 Can we say the same about a group of people such as the Echota?? No, we certainly can not.
 

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #115 on: November 11, 2009, 01:46:12 AM »
Just wanted to add that Rattlebone makes a good point.  And you CANT catagorize all State Recognized Tribes, and sometmies even non recognized Tribes.  I always use the example of the fake Cherokee Tribes, because the Cherokees are my Tribe.  And I know I've said it before.  There are legit Tribes that are State Recognized and/or un recognized in some instances.  The sheer number of fake Tribes recognzied by States does however tarnish the name of all State Recognzied Tribes.

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 504
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #116 on: November 11, 2009, 01:48:28 AM »
Quote
It seems to me that you are insinuating here that somebody claiming to be an Echota Cherokee could take on Fancy Dancing since they have no clue about traditional Cherokee dances, and then adopt Fancy Dancing as "part of their culture."

hahahahahahahaaha.  I want front row seats for that one!

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 151
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #117 on: November 11, 2009, 01:55:20 AM »
well, well I knew that would wake up this thread,,,

Way to much to reply to.
But again I point out that just because one doesn't like it,,, these State Tribes are there and have some forms of Fed. recognition.  many here confuse politics and law with culture.

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 151
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #118 on: November 11, 2009, 01:56:14 AM »
Just wanted to add that Rattlebone makes a good point.  And you CANT catagorize all State Recognized Tribes, and sometmies even non recognized Tribes.  I always use the example of the fake Cherokee Tribes, because the Cherokees are my Tribe.  And I know I've said it before.  There are legit Tribes that are State Recognized and/or un recognized in some instances.  The sheer number of fake Tribes recognzied by States does however tarnish the name of all State Recognzied Tribes.

Agreed...

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 151
Re: Federally Recognized Indians, Descendants, Wannabees and Exploiters
« Reply #119 on: November 11, 2009, 02:06:41 AM »
RB said:
" Maybe when you engage in this conversation next time, you will have researched the separation of powers in the United States government and realized that federal power is above state power."

True the Fed does have power is above state power, but they legislate recognition of State Tribes in some of their policies. You can't say that they don't. (or would you like some citations?) And in as much as they do that, then the Fed is recognizing that there are State Tribes. True,  they give different benefits but that has nothing to do with it.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 02:26:42 AM by Paul123 »