new and afraid
Cody Marie Phoenix
I joined this news group a couple of days ago and have gone through
several hundred messages. I have to say, I don't know if I'll be
welcome here or not. I think I must have come in to far into the
discussion of the Cherokee Nation, but my family was split during the
removal and the majority stayed in our sacred mountains of North
Carolina. Some of my family, specifically the Rogers, were moved to
Oklahoma.
I read some place that those that stayed behind were cowards so I want
to make sure I will be welcome here. I do have to say though and I hope
it doesn't start an uproar...I don't call people standing up for staying
on their land and refusing to be removed from it cowards.
I'm the only one in my family not born in those North Carolina mountains
and was raised in Europe away from the majority of them so I'm hoping to
learn a lot from people here in time.
Thanks for reading...
Cody Phoenix
wary...@cris.com
Aimfl
>Cody Marie Phoenix wrote:
>I read some place that those that stayed behind were cowards so I want
>to make sure I will be welcome here.
That was Adam Young's distortion of our comments regarding a group of people
in Georgia claiming to be the Cherokee Nation. The Tsalagi who stayed in NC are
the Quallah Band and they reisted and remained Indian. The GA folks pretended
to be white for 150 years and only in the late 1970's did they suddenly claim
to be skins.
Don Foster
ALL MUST RESIST SO THAT NONE ARE LEFT BEHIND
Cody Marie Phoenix
> That was <snip> distortion of our comments regarding a group of people
> in Georgia claiming to be the Cherokee Nation. The Tsalagi who stayed in NC are
> the Quallah Band and they reisted and remained Indian. The GA folks pretended
> to be white for 150 years and only in the late 1970's did they suddenly claim
> to be skins.
Thank you for clearing that up for me Don.
I wonder if those were people left behind at New Echota in Georgia. I
had an opportunity to visit both there and Etowah<sp?> where it's said
our mound builder forfathers came from before Desoto. The park services
have rebuilt a couple of the buildings that were at New Echota including
the office for "The Cherokee Phoenix" newspaper. The only original
building still standing is the tavern that was there which I believe was
also a bed/breakfast type place.
At any rate, my heart belongs to my Smoky Mountains in NC no matter
which of the four directions my relations have travelled in. :)
Cody
William Scott Anderson
On 14 May 1998 01:06:13 EDT, Cody Marie Phoenix <wary...@cris.com>
wrote:
>I joined this news group a couple of days ago and have gone through
>several hundred messages. I have to say, I don't know if I'll be
>welcome here or not.
You certainly are welcome. Newsgroups suck when they are like this
one. If you get sick of watching all of the wrangling going on, I
don't blame you. There are more tranquil places on the net. I will
e-mail some good Tsalagi chat groups to you. Do you know Major Ridge's
descendants the Southern Cherokee there in Ridgecrest? Good folks!
I think I must have come in to far into the
>discussion of the Cherokee Nation, but my family was split during the
>removal and the majority stayed in our sacred mountains of North
>Carolina. Some of my family, specifically the Rogers, were moved to
>Oklahoma.
>
>I read some place that those that stayed behind were cowards so I want
Adam
Inadvertantly I left out the exclusion of the Quallah boundary group,
but as you stated the others and there are many others that stayed
behind were cowards. That is a nast categorization of people.
Richard Anthony Drezek
On 14 May 1998, Aimfl wrote:
> >Cody Marie Phoenix wrote:
>
> >I read some place that those that stayed behind were cowards so I want
> >to make sure I will be welcome here.
>
> That was Adam Young's distortion of our comments regarding a group of people
> in Georgia claiming to be the Cherokee Nation. The Tsalagi who stayed in NC are
My my, you guys love to lie and distort the truth. They are NOT claiming
to be the "Cherokee Nation" but they ARE the Georgia Tribe of Eastern
Cherokees. However, since you have a history of lying, I guess this
latest post of yours goes right along with it.
ricky
ovation
Have you heard of the Cherokee Nation of Texas? Just send them some money
and they will make anyone a member of their tribe... card and all....
If anyone wants to see the post I found on this... just ask...
Aimfl
>Adam wrote:
>Inadvertantly I left out the exclusion of the Quallah boundary group,
I seriously doubt that you inadevrtently do anything on this medium Adam since
I firmly believe your post record and multiple subscriptions show an intent to
flame.
>but as you stated the others and there are many others that stayed
>behind were cowards. That is a nast categorization of people.
The individuals who stayed and were not part of Quallah deisclaimed their
Indian status and citizneship by their choice. They did NOT file with the ICC
as a treaty Nation nor as a landless Tribe. They never filed with any
international court as several landless Nations have. They never stood with
Quallah trough all that they went through. Didn't speak up during termination.
In fact they stayed silent , in the particular case of Richards pet group only
arose in 1979 to petition for fed ack in 1980. I do not view people who eschew
their citizenship for 150 years as having a legitimate claim to citizenship let
alone nation status.
Sheridan Murphy
Aimfl
> Richard Anthony Drezek
> My my, you guys love to lie and distort the truth. They are NOT claiming
>to be the "Cherokee Nation" but they ARE the Georgia Tribe of Eastern
>Cherokees. However, since you have a history of lying, I guess this
>latest post of yours goes right along with it.
>
>
Mr. Drezeck are you proposing to state that the Georgia Tribe of Eastern
Cherokees are a tribe that historically existed seperate and distinct from the
Cherokee Nation that existed at the time of invasion? If so this sheds new
light on the subject. If not learn some more before you make emotionally
inspired accusations based on your emotional attachment to that association of
lineal descendants you desire to exist as a tribe.
William Scott Anderson
On Thu, 14 May 1998 01:14:21 -0500, "ovation" <ova...@midusa.net>
wrote:
>Have you heard of the Cherokee Nation of Texas? Just send them some money
>and they will make anyone a member of their tribe... card and all....
>
>If anyone wants to see the post I found on this... just ask...
We saw it. It's totally disgusting, and I hope they get charged,
arrested, and imprisoned. It's a traitorous act against their Tsalagi
relative's, if they have any. I have seen several bands of Tsalagi on
the net, but not those guys. I have never heard of them, ad I make it
my business to know about these groups.
Tsalagiyi Nvdagi is a Texas band of lineal descendants, but would
never stoop to something like this. Their leader Pappy Hicks, is
highly respected by many in the traditional Tsalagi community. Pappy
is probably the most famous of all the Vietnam War era green berets.
He was the first US Army type that lived with the mountain people in
Laos. Pappy's second cousin Tsali Hicks was one of the last real
Tsalagi Medicin men in OK. I'm gonna get hold of Pappy, and tell him
about this traitorous act by these idiots, and he will take care of
business with the Texas Authorities. He has friends in very high
places. I will call him tomorrow!
>
>
Adam
Aimfl wrote:
>
I do not view people who eschew
> their citizenship for 150 years as having a legitimate claim to citizenship let
> alone nation status.
I am close to agreement. I don't believe they neccesarily have a
legitimate claim. Of course I am not an Anthropologist and I haven't
reviewed there materials. I have asserted that there were in fact
Cherokee people that were left behind other than the Qualah. I also
acknowledge the possibility that they lived in communities that were
primarily native. I also acknowledge the possibility that there are
fraudulent groups out there claiming to be Cherokee. There is a distinct
reason that I make allowances on the issue of Cherokee heritage and that
is an internal issue for Cherokees only.
Patrick Augustine
Cody,
One should not apologize for circumstances beyond their control. Many times
people are too quick to judge, often times before they get all their facts
together. Sometimes they see the negative aspect of themselves in others and
lash out, it's human nature. Here in Mi'kmaki, the Elders want to be close
to where their ancestors are buried. Their blood runs in their veins. When
someone is returned to Mother Earth, they become part of Mother Earth. They
contribute to the soil, to the plants that rise from the soil. Animals will
eat the plants, and the Mi'kmaq eat the animals. So, the circle continues,
we become strongly connected to our traditional lands, where our ancestors
are buried. We receive our teachings from their spirits, when we fast and
pray. Its part of our connection to our identity, of our spot on this world,
in this universe.
Alquimou
Cody Marie Phoenix wrote:
> I joined this news group a couple of days ago and have gone through
> several hundred messages. I have to say, I don't know if I'll be
> welcome here or not. I think I must have come in to far into the
> discussion of the Cherokee Nation, but my family was split during the
> removal and the majority stayed in our sacred mountains of North
> Carolina. Some of my family, specifically the Rogers, were moved to
> Oklahoma.
>
> I read some place that those that stayed behind were cowards so I want
Adam
Aimfl wrote:
>
> >Adam wrote:
>
> >There is a distinct >reason that I make allowances on the issue of Cherokee
> heritage and that >is an internal issue for Cherokees only.
>
> colonized by the colonial settler states, that might be so. The reality is that
> the effect of bogus groups seeking recognition and those achieving and
> submitting to state recognition is that it will undermine the efforts of all
> Indigenous Nations in the belly of the United States to excercise their
> inherent sovereign rights.
>
> Sheridan Murphy
>
> ALL MUST RESIST SO THAT NONE ARE LEFT BEHIND
Now I agree with you bogus or faux groups are problematic where I might
differ is on what a faux group is. Let's wait and see what the feds say
about some of these groups first, and lets hope that there decisions are
based on facts and not internal politics.
Sheridan I know we've discussed this before, but maybe I should be more
direct. There are reasons why I believe indian nations do not have
sovereignty. I would reiterate that these are powers that the tribes
ought to have and are currently impinged.
1. Reservation land is land that is held in trust.
2. The Federal government made it a federal crime to break any state
crime while on a reservaion.
3. All indian people must pay federal taxes while living on a
reservation.
4. Indian men can be drafted into the U.S. military.
5. The federal government has jurisdiction over endangered species.
These are just a few examples of the sovereignty of Indian Nations being
impinged. It's not right and the sooner it is acknowledged the sooner
these issues can be resolved.
William Scott Anderson
On Thu, 14 May 1998 20:41:41 -0700, Adam <che...@concentric.net>
wrote:
>Inadvertantly I left out the exclusion of the Quallah boundary group,
>but as you stated the others and there are many others that stayed
>behind were cowards.
When I spoke with Thomas B. Mote, (who is an older man, and used to be
a GTEC council member) a couple of years ago, he explained that the
people that have now evolved into what is now the GTEC were offered
federal recognition at one time, but they did not want to leave their
properties they owned in GA. They were required to remove to inside
the Qualla boundary to receive federal recognition.
He explained to me that their ancestors walked the trail, and filtered
back over the years. He said that when Carter was in office, all the
Cherokee groups were asked to incorporate in preparation for federal
recognition. Then, the Iran hostage crisis ensued, and Carter never
had the chance to met with them to finalize things.
That's the story I got.
Aimfl
kdawn
why Thank You William Scott Anderson..<S>
son...@jaguarsystems.com
In article <355A9A...@cris.com>,
wary...@cris.com wrote:
>
> I joined this news group a couple of days ago and have gone through
> several hundred messages. I have to say, I don't know if I'll be
> welcome here or not. I think I must have come in to far into the
> discussion of the Cherokee Nation, but my family was split during the
> removal and the majority stayed in our sacred mountains of North
> Carolina. Some of my family, specifically the Rogers, were moved to
> Oklahoma.
I definitely welcome you. I am looking forward to reading what you have to
say here.
Sondra
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Richard Anthony Drezek
On 15 May 1998, Aimfl wrote:
> Quallah trough all that they went through. Didn't speak up during termination.
You have NO idea what the Indian familes who stayed behind in TN, AL, and
Ga went through. You see, it is much better to be in a group of people
who are Indian and look like you than be an Indian family and being
surrounded by whites, and not seeing another Indain family for many miles.
Whites were especially cruel to lone Indians, let me tell you. I have
many stories on that alone, among the people I know.
> arose in 1979 to petition for fed ack in 1980. I do not view people who eschew
> their citizenship for 150 years as having a legitimate claim to citizenship let
> alone nation status.
They always knew their identity and tribe, as well as their racial status
in relation to surrounding whites. It was maintained, that is why we have
-lineal descendants- who know who they are and can verify it. Nation?
No, but Cheorkee people living in their homeland? Yes. They should at
least have the recognition as a "band" of Indians. You said the Poarch
Creek gave up their right as a Nation when they accepted state-recogntion
from the State of Alabama, yet they still have federal recognition.
What would be wrong with the GTEC having the same status? Nothing at all.
ricky
Richard Anthony Drezek
On 15 May 1998, Aimfl wrote:
>
> Mr. Drezeck are you proposing to state that the Georgia Tribe of Eastern
> Cherokees are a tribe that historically existed seperate and distinct from the
> Cherokee Nation that existed at the time of invasion? If so this sheds new
Was the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians existing at the time of invasion
or the Cherokee Nation in general? Or was the Eastern Bamnd just a group
of Cheorkees living here and there among the mountains until Will Thomas
got them incorporated as a -coroporation-. Of if you hold to the United
Keetoowah Band's claim, the UKB, and not CNO, are the true Cheorkee
Nation.
So no, I am not proposing that GTEC was THE Cheorkee Nation at the time
of Colombus, but they are part of the broad group of lineal Cherokees in
general.
> light on the subject. If not learn some more before you make emotionally
> inspired accusations based on your emotional attachment to that association of
> lineal descendants you desire to exist as a tribe.
I am very emotionally attached to Cherokee people, I am Cherokee, and I
do love my own. No bias, just outright love for my people, whether UKB,
CNO, whatever. Enroled or unenrolled, if they really are Cherokee, for
real, I do consider them my own. That is natural, and I don't think there
is anything wrong with that, and the info I have presented is factual.
ricky
Richard Anthony Drezek
On 16 May 1998, Aimfl wrote:
>
> Were Indigenous peoples throughout the Western Hemisphere not oppressed and
> colonized by the colonial settler states, that might be so. The reality is that
> the effect of bogus groups seeking recognition and those achieving and
I agree that -bogus-grouos should not be granted state-recogntion as
"Indian", but if they truly are Idnains, and lineal descendants at that,
they should not be counted among the phony baloney groups like the extra
21 you guys have in FL, shich is a crock if I ever saw one. Twenty-one
groups? You all do have my sympathies; let;s just say I am gald I live in
IL, where the new-agers we have to deal with rarely come in large groups,
but rather frightful individuals who like close encounters <however, i
cannot say which is worse, since they are scary in person>.
ricky
William Scott Anderson
>Cody,
>
>One should not apologize for circumstances beyond their control. Many times
>people are too quick to judge, often times before they get all their facts
>together. Sometimes they see the negative aspect of themselves in others and
>lash out, it's human nature. Here in Mi'kmaki, the Elders want to be close
>to where their ancestors are buried. Their blood runs in their veins. When
>someone is returned to Mother Earth, they become part of Mother Earth. They
>contribute to the soil, to the plants that rise from the soil. Animals will
>eat the plants, and the Mi'kmaq eat the animals. So, the circle continues,
>we become strongly connected to our traditional lands, where our ancestors
>are buried. We receive our teachings from their spirits, when we fast and
>pray. Its part of our connection to our identity, of our spot on this world,
>in this universe.
>
>Alquimou
>
>Cody Marie Phoenix wrote:
>
>> I joined this news group a couple of days ago and have gone through
>> several hundred messages. I have to say, I don't know if I'll be
>> welcome here or not. I think I must have come in to far into the
>> discussion of the Cherokee Nation, but my family was split during the
>> removal and the majority stayed in our sacred mountains of North
>> Carolina. Some of my family, specifically the Rogers, were moved to
>> Oklahoma.
I knew a Ray Rogers from Okmulgee as I recall that was world archery
champion back in the late 60's. Good man!
Ellyssar
Cody Marie Phoenix wrote:
>
> I joined this news group a couple of days ago and have gone through
> several hundred messages. I have to say, I don't know if I'll be
> welcome here or not. I think I must have come in to far into the
> discussion of the Cherokee Nation, but my family was split during the
> removal and the majority stayed in our sacred mountains of North
> Carolina. Some of my family, specifically the Rogers, were moved to
> Oklahoma.
>
> to make sure I will be welcome here. I do have to say though and I hope
> it doesn't start an uproar...I don't call people standing up for staying
> on their land and refusing to be removed from it cowards.
>
> I'm the only one in my family not born in those North Carolina mountains
> and was raised in Europe away from the majority of them so I'm hoping to
> learn a lot from people here in time.
>
> Thanks for reading...
>
> Cody Phoenix
> wary...@cris.com
I'm not sure anyone is welcome here.This should be an enviroment for
unity,instead it seems to be more a place for divisivness.I too am a
product of those who stayed behind and embraced the white society.And I
too was born far away from the Smokeys,but I have been there and one
day I'll live there.You need not fear,if no one else,I will speak to
you of our shared heritage.
John
Aimfl
>: Adam wrote:
>Let's wait and see what the feds say>about some of these groups first, and
lets hope that there decisions are>based on facts and not internal politics.
This I would agree, I do believe howeber that if the process; rather than
legislative fiat, is utilized most of the groups mentioned here wil be denied.
> There are reasons why I believe indian nations do not have >sovereignty. I
would reiterate that these are powers that the tribes >ought to have and are
currently impinged.
If one is held hostage does that individual, by the criminal actions of
another, thereby loose their rights as a free human being? We would state no,
that they retain those rights and that the criminal behavior has infringed
those rights due to unjuct behavior that should be accounted for.
>2. The Federal government made it a federal crime to break any state
>crime while on a reservaion.
Only in Public Law 280 states where the states illegally have jurisdiction
anyway/
Aimfl
>williamsco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>When I spoke with Thomas B. Mote, (who is an older man, and used to be >a GTEC
council member) a couple of years ago, he explained that the >people that have
now evolved into what is now the GTEC were offered >federal recognition at one
time, but they did not want to leave their >properties they owned in GA. They
were required to remove to inside >the Qualla boundary to receive federal
recognition.
Such underscores a misunderstanding on either Mr. Anderson or Mr. Mote's part
of the federal acknowledgement process. Under CFR 87 any group applying for
federal acknowledgement must be considered sperate from all other groups if Mr.
Mote's associated in the GTEC were eligible for enrollment in Eastern Band then
they would not be considered for seperate federal acknowledgement. If they were
not considered eligible their moving inside Quallah would make absoultely no
qualitative difference in their meeting the seven criteria for federal
acknowldgement and in fact might undermine them as their seperation from
Quallah would be less distinct and more difficlt to prove.
>He said that when Carter was in office, all the >Cherokee groups were asked to
incorporate in preparation for federal >recognition.
Such a statement is incongrous with the facts. The United States Executive
branch has absolutely no participation in the enrollment process and such a
statement on the part of Mr. Carter may in fact violate the due process of
other organizations i.e. non-Cherokee, involved in the Federal Acknowledgement
process.
>Then, the Iran hostage crisis ensued, and Carter never >had the chance to met
with them to finalize things.
Again such an action would be irrelevant to the federal acknowledgement
process and should not have affected the due process of those groups
petitioning for such.
Don Foster
Aimfl
> Richard Anthony Drezek wrote:
>You have NO idea what the Indian familes who stayed behind in TN, AL, and >Ga
went through. You see, it is much better to be in a group of people >who are
Indian and look like you than be an Indian family and being >surrounded by
whites, and not seeing another Indain family for many miles.
We do know what happened to Indian families who never denied their heritage
and remained Indian whether on the reservations or in urban communities. The
facts remain that the groups to which you refer did not in any way claim to be
Indian in a definitive sense prior to 1979. There are no records of this groups
involvement in treaty rights discussion on either a government to government
basis with the United States or in the international forums that developed in
the 1970's. This group never spoke up regarding the persecutions of the
folks at Quallah or the Lumbee's at any point. This group never stood up
before the Indian Land Claims Commission. which existed from the 1930's on.
This group never protested or even wqas mentioned during the vigorous debates
about the Indian Reorganization Act. The group never stood up as many Nations
in the southeast suffered termination under the termination act of the 1950's
>Whites were especially cruel to lone Indians, let me tell you.
WERE? Ever been to South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin? Where Indians get shot at
for fishing????????????????????? Yet I have yet to see an Anishinabe community
hide because they were afraid to say they were an Anishinabe group nor did the
folks at Quallah or UKB or CNO.
> They should at >least have the recognition as a "band" of Indians. You said
the Poarch >Creek gave up their right as a Nation when they accepted
state-recogntion
>from the State of Alabama, yet they still have federal recognition.
>What would be wrong with the GTEC having the same status? Nothing at all.
If they meet the 7 criteria under CFR then so be it. However based on my
knowledge of the situation first hand I would say they will not get it and two
of the groups including GTEC have already been denied.
Sheridan Murphy
Aimfl
>: Richard Anthony Drezek
>Was the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians existing at the time of invasion
>or the Cherokee Nation in general?
To answer your question both did exist. The CNO remains the original government
of the Tsalagi people at the time of invasion as the traditional seats of
government were moved. Eastern Band retained government from the time of
relocation and remained in their homeland. UKB is a organization that takes
into account those outside of the 14 NE counties and many of its citizens are
traditional however as you may note they recieved acknowledgement after CNO and
Eastern Band. Therefore the traditional governments of the Cherokee Nation are
retained by the aforementioned bodies. As the GTEC did not organize under IRA
they have no claim to government and are therefore simply an association of
lineal descendants.
richard
In article <199805172111...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, ai...@aol.com
says...
>
>>williamsco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>When I spoke with Thomas B. Mote, (who is an older man, and used to be >a
GTEC
>council member) a couple of years ago, he explained that the >people that
have
>now evolved into what is now the GTEC were offered >federal recognition at
one
>time, but they did not want to leave their >properties they owned in GA.
They
>were required to remove to inside >the Qualla boundary to receive federal
>recognition.
>
>
> Such underscores a misunderstanding on either Mr. Anderson or Mr. Mote's
part
>of the federal acknowledgement process. Under CFR 87 any group applying for
>federal acknowledgement must be considered sperate from all other groups if
Mr.
>Mote's associated in the GTEC were eligible for enrollment in Eastern Band
then
>they would not be considered for seperate federal acknowledgement. If they
were
>not considered eligible their moving inside Quallah would make absoultely no
>qualitative difference in their meeting the seven criteria for federal
>acknowldgement and in fact might undermine them as their seperation from
>Quallah would be less distinct and more difficlt to prove.
Thomas Mote is not a member of the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees. The
GTEC does not affiliate with him, either. He is, however, a lineal
descendant with documentation.
richard
In article <199805172124...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, ai...@aol.com
says...
>
>> We do know what happened to Indian families who never denied their
heritage
>and remained Indian whether on the reservations or in urban communities. The
>facts remain that the groups to which you refer did not in any way claim to
be
>Indian in a definitive sense prior to 1979. There are no records of this
We are talking about Indian remants, not the majority. And if you really
think they did not claim Indian in any definitive sense then I recommend
searching the census records, as many are listed as "Indian".
And if they all just faded into white society, we wouldn't have their
descendants KNOWING what they are, and proving their bloodlines.
>This group never spoke up regarding the persecutions of the
>folks at Quallah or the Lumbee's at any point. This group never stood up
>before the Indian Land Claims Commission. which existed from the 1930's on.
>This group never protested or even wqas mentioned during the vigorous
debates
>about the Indian Reorganization Act. The group never stood up as many
Nations
>in the southeast suffered termination under the termination act of the
1950's
>
I never said they were like the Cherokee Nation in government. More like a
community. We are talking of a couple hundred lineal descendants back in
those days, and not petitioning the BIA for acknowledgment does not diminish
the fact that they are Indians.
>
>>Whites were especially cruel to lone Indians, let me tell you.
>
>WERE? Ever been to South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin? Where Indians get shot
Sure have been there, to Indian communities. Hmm, now are you trying to
change this into an arguement of "Richard thinks whites WERE cruel, but he
doesn't think they are anymore"? Hmm? Please, I do know you are skilled at
trying to attribute opinions to people but that is enough. I know very well
about how some whites are to Indians today, I have experienced it myself. My
family has experienced it and still does, and so do my friends.
at
>for fishing????????????????????? Yet I have yet to see an Anishinabe
community
>hide because they were afraid to say they were an Anishinabe group nor did
the
>folks at Quallah or UKB or CNO.
Nobody "hid". We lived our daily lives and put up with the crap the
rednecks dished out, except it was pretty dang tough when you are a lone
family surrounded by whites, with none of your "kin" for miles.
>
>
>
>> They should at >least have the recognition as a "band" of Indians. You
said
>the Poarch >Creek gave up their right as a Nation when they accepted
>state-recogntion
>>from the State of Alabama, yet they still have federal recognition.
>>What would be wrong with the GTEC having the same status? Nothing at all.
>
> If they meet the 7 criteria under CFR then so be it. However based on my
>knowledge of the situation first hand I would say they will not get it and
two
>of the groups including GTEC have already been denied.
Who knows. The end outcome will still be that they are Indians and can
prove it.
son...@jaguarsystems.com
In article <6jonpo$1078$1...@piglet.cc.uic.edu>,
rdr...@uic.edu (richard) wrote:
>
> Who knows. The end outcome will still be that they are Indians and can
> prove it.
>
anyone.
So I'm going to play a game of "let's pretend." If I make sense, let me know.
Let's pretend I am a Caucasian. We'll say my ancestors came here from --
let's see -- Norway. I would still be Caucasian because that is an
anthropological racial term. But I would not be Norweigan, because that is a
nationality, and I have become a United States citizen. Furthermore, let's
pretend it was my parents who came here from Norway, and so I have cousins in
Norway. One of my cousins marries an Ethiopian, and they go to live in
Ethiopia. Because she marries him, and is a member of his family, she is now
an Ethiopian. However, although most Ethiopians are members of the Negroid
race, she is still a Caucasian. Membership in a nation is (or ought to be)
based on family ties. So someone could conceivably be a full blood Indian,
and not be a part of any Indian nation. I doubt that happens very often, but
it's possible. The argument here is not on whether folks of Cherokee descent
are, or are not, anthropologically Indians. It is not even an argument on
whether or not they had Cherokee ancestors. The issue is whether or not they
are members of a Cherokee nation.
Sondra
http://www.jaguarsystems.com/sondra/
Aimfl
>rdr...@uic.edu wrote:
> We are talking about Indian remants
Okay then. A remnant of a dress, shirt or pair of pants is no longer a dress,
shirt or pair of pants but a remnant. It should aspire to its new role rather
than claim to be a shirt, pair of pants etctera. If the individuals in your
GTEC or many of these other groups stopped at calling themselves remnants or
lineal descendants there would be no problem.
> And if you really >think they did not claim Indian in any definitive sense
then I recommend >searching the census records, as many are listed as
"Indian".
As the 1990 census clearly shows that self-identification is not neccessarily
any yardstick. Further those claiming Indian in the census were virtually
non-existent in the southeast in the 1930's, 40's through to the 1980's when a
marketable jump was noticed.
>I never said they were like the Cherokee Nation in government. More like a
>community.
Without government one can not be a Tribe/Band/or Nation.
>Sure have been there, to Indian communities. Hmm, now are you trying to
>change this into an arguement of "Richard thinks whites WERE cruel, but he
>doesn't think they are anymore"?
No rather providing substantive evidence that Indigenous peoples subjected to
extreme cultural and physical oppression on a daily basis survived and
maintained their national status while many of these alleged southeastern
groups applying for state recognition maintain tales of hiding for 150 years
before suddenly coming out of the woodwork and declaring their status and
wanting acknowledgement that they are a Nation. Thats all.
>Nobody "hid"
I would refer you to the petitions of several groups including the Georgia
group that states otherwise as an explanation of why their was no governmental
interaction between these groups and the United States as government to
government for over 150 years even though opportunities such as the ICC and IRA
presented themselves.
Tom Gerhardt
Welcome Cody,
Wado equa. Yvsa-G
We are here for we never left,Hayv.
Richard Anthony Drezek
On 18 May 1998, Aimfl wrote:
>
> Okay then. A remnant of a dress, shirt or pair of pants is no longer a dress,
> shirt or pair of pants but a remnant. It should aspire to its new role rather
> than claim to be a shirt, pair of pants etctera. If the individuals in your
> GTEC or many of these other groups stopped at calling themselves remnants or
> lineal descendants there would be no problem.
You are pretty sick to come up with that. What are you? You are just
part of a shirt as well. What I meant was they are remants, those left
behind, or those who stayed behind. I am not saying they are remnants
since they are -part- Cherokee, and therefore not -complete- Cheorkee, as
you have deduced with youe little analogy on pants and shirts. I find it
pretty disgusting coming from a mixed-blood, as you are. You are
half-white. maybe you should aspire to your role as a half-Finn. Does
it make sense? Should we create a new culture catergory for you?
You have an aweful lot to say about Indian blood being low, but you will
never be a fullblood no matter how ashamed you are at being half white.
By the way, Don and you the one who began the indulgence in the
phrase "lineal descendants" so I started using it. Sounds pretty cute.
Now you want to stop? Sure. Let's just use the phrase that I prefer, and
that fits them, Indians.
Lineal descendant is what you call people you do not accept as Indian
because they do not
fit your ideas of "blood quantum." Sad for you is that the majority of
the GTEC are over 1/8 Cherokee by blood with many at half or more. And if
you do not accept them as Indian, you certainly do not accept CNO's great
majority who are under 1/4 Indian <90% +>. But your contradtictory
opinions really don't matter.
>
> > And if you really >think they did not claim Indian in any definitive sense
> then I recommend >searching the census records, as many are listed as
> "Indian".
>
> As the 1990 census clearly shows that self-identification is not neccessarily
> any yardstick. Further those claiming Indian in the census were virtually
I am not speaking of the 1990 census. Try 1890, or 1840, 1850, 1920,
1930. There are many listed as Indian. Common establshed fact, any idiot
can go to Fed Archives and see this. I suggest you go and look it up.
Although it does take work, and I know you might not be used to
researching considering half the stuff you post is contrary to the fact
regarding this topic.
> >I never said they were like the Cherokee Nation in government. More like a
> >community.
> Without government one can not be a Tribe/Band/or Nation.
They have a government, what I said was they are not like the CNO in
government. I
already recommended re-taking grammar school English to you. Now I
re-recommend it.
> >Sure have been there, to Indian communities. Hmm, now are you trying to
> >change this into an arguement of "Richard thinks whites WERE cruel, but he
> >doesn't think they are anymore"?
>
> No rather providing substantive evidence that Indigenous peoples subjected to
> extreme cultural and physical oppression on a daily basis survived and
> maintained their national status while many of these alleged southeastern
> groups applying for state recognition maintain tales of hiding for 150 years
> before suddenly coming out of the woodwork and declaring their status and
> wanting acknowledgement that they are a Nation. Thats all.
I am speaking of tribes that -have- state-recogntion, not those who are
applying for it. Hiding stories, well there are some. But I can tell you
non of my family hid. Closest neighbors
hwere also Indians, and then the rest were white people. No where to
hide. Strange, however, is that each and every family member also found
another Indian to marry. Some of my ancestors couln't marry since
marrying a white was prohibited<a common courtesy in the South was to
stay with your own kind if possible, do to dire consequences>. Talk about
hiding. So that had to search out other Indians.
>
> >Nobody "hid"
>
> I would refer you to the petitions of several groups including the Georgia
> group that states otherwise as an explanation of why their was no governmental
> interaction between these groups and the United States as government to
> government for over 150 years even though opportunities such as the ICC and IRA
> presented themselves.
Refer me. You can e-mail me why the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees
had no governmental action, I would gladly read it. Since their
application is pending, it would be enjoyable.
ricky
Richard Anthony Drezek
Texas? Just wondering. I try to keep tabs on all groups claiming
Cherokee as well, and it seems that that "we are here for we never left"
or something similar was on the "Texas Cherokee" application.
Richard Anthony Drezek
On Mon, 18 May 1998 son...@jaguarsystems.com wrote:
>
> based on family ties. So someone could conceivably be a full blood Indian,
> and not be a part of any Indian nation. I doubt that happens very often, but
> it's possible. The argument here is not on whether folks of Cherokee descent
Not often, but yes it has happened, and these people still exist. As I
have said, they are members of my family. I have actual fullbloods in my
family, andthey are not elligible for enrollment in CNO or EB due
to not having ancestors on the proper Rolls.
> are, or are not, anthropologically Indians. It is not even an argument on
> whether or not they had Cherokee ancestors. The issue is whether or not they
> are members of a Cherokee nation.
Actually Sondra, the argument has changed due to statments made by both
Don and Sheridan claiming they are wannabes. And since I am not going to
let their lie go by and say "oh it's not part of the discussion" I
responded. Then in the next paragrapgh
they will allow the possiblilty that they are "lineal descendants." It is
contradictory, and a source of debate. The tribe in question is the
Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees, which Don has labelled as wannabes.
This is remarkable since all of the GTEC <around 500 members> can document
their ancestry, and most, if not all, are above 1/8 Cherokee. Seeing that
the CNO has no "mininum blood" and the EB was 1/16 <when they were
accepting applicants>, this is also a slap to Don. That is what HE
brought up, that they are wannbes, when they are not. That is why this
thread continues under that arguement. Maybe you can send Don and
Sheridan a message as well, since they continue debating it also, even in
the face of the reality that the people being spoken of are Indians.
ricky
Aimfl
>Richard Anthony Drezek wrote:
>You are pretty sick to come up with that.
I appreciate your concern, I do at present have the flue,. Thank You.
>What are you?
What am I. I am a human being a Iyeska Ikce Wicasa nothing less, nothing more.
>You are just >part of a shirt as well. What I meant was they are remants,
those left
>behind, or those who stayed behind. I am not saying they are remnants
>since they are -part- Cherokee,
It would be most likely, particularly for the group to which you promote, that
they are remnants of being Tsalagi or lineal descendants. That is taking for
granted as fact all reasonable assertions that you have made and within their
petition.
>You have an aweful lot to say about Indian blood being low, but you will
>never be a fullblood no matter how ashamed you are at being half white.
Hmm, When did I state ashamedness at being half white-Finnish. Er, never. My
grandfather was a military leader during Finland's 1917 war with Russia and
again during he 1930's. I know and am proud of my families history in that
regard.
>Don and you the one who began the indulgence in the
>phrase "lineal descendants"
Actually, we did not invent the term. It is used by historians and genologists
to describe that part makeup of which a person can no longer be part of or
legally identify with. For example a person who is 1/4000 African is no longer
recognizable as an African and no longer a citizen of an African country but
can claim lineal descendancy from Africa. Similarly many groups in the
southeast applying for federal acknowledgement left their nation and remained
in non-Indian communities for the last 150 years. Again presuming all of the
individuals in the GTEC had relatives that 150 years ago were part of the
Tsalagi Nation then these individuals would have a legal and moral claim to be
lineal descendants not one to create a nation.
>I am not speaking of the 1990 census. Try 1890, or 1840, 1850, 1920, >1930.
In the south, prior to the 1950's most census records reco"white" or colored.
Please direct me to a United States census for Dahlonga, GA or any Georgia
county during those periods that shows any American Indians listed on the
United States cenus for that period.
>There are many listed as Indian. Common establshed fact, any idiot >can go to
Fed Archives and see this. I suggest you go and look it up.
Again, I would ask that you direct me to the census volume, year and tract in
which American Indian people are categorized in a Georgia county, other than
the prior to 1950.
>Although it does take work, and I know you might not be used to
>researching considering half the stuff you post is contrary to the fact
>regarding this topic.
I can only respond by asking if you have ever taken law courses and understand
the relevant research required therein.
>They have a government, what I said was they are not like the CNO
in>government
What kind of government do they have? It can not be a traditional Tsalagi
government as the authority for such went to OK on the trail of tears-save the
individuals in Quallah. It could not be a IRA Tribal Council form as without
acknowledgement they can not form such. It can not be a county or municipal
form of government as they have not incorporated as a municipality in the state
of Georgia or petitioned the Georgia legislature for a seperate county seat.
The act of acknowledgement by the state of Georgia confers no legal authority
to present a government. They do not have authority under international law to
form such a governmental entity. Exactly how, under what authority, and what
kind of government have they formed? When was if formed and under what process
does it exist?
> Strange, however, is that each and every family member also found
>another Indian to marry.
Strange indeed! The population you described at 500 CURRENTLY. Indigenous
populations have grown from 200,000 to 1,800,000 since the turn of the century.
Ignoring the fact that every mathmatical figure I can come up with utilizing
that growth pattern indicates 1 person-or usually a fraction of a person,
generated those 500-it is mystifying how over 150 years -what must have been a
minsicule group of individuals surrounded by, what you describe as a hostile,
white population, only bred with themselves over 150 years. Such an
outstanding set of circumstances defies logic. Such small bands of Indian
Nations do exist. However most have intermarried with other nations to survive.
This GTEC group now, according to Richard, escaped or fled from the Trail of
Tears. Missed US Army units that scoured the southeast to insure removal and
engaged the Seminole Nation in Florida and was well aware of the Quallah
group-yet no record exists of a group in Georgia that maintained a community.
And further were not identified as an Indian group by US troops which flooded
Georgia during the Civil War at which time it was ILLEGAL for those Nations to
have members in those states. This group, again, did not seek redress before
the Indian Claims Commission (most good libraries have copies of the reports
and most universities have all of them). etcetra popping up on the documentary
landscape in 1979.
son...@jaguarsystems.com
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980519...@icarus.cc.uic.edu>,
Richard Anthony Drezek <rdr...@uic.edu> wrote:
> Actually Sondra, the argument has changed due to statments made by both
> Don and Sheridan claiming they are wannabes. And since I am not going to
> let their lie go by and say "oh it's not part of the discussion" I
> responded. Then in the next paragrapgh
> they will allow the possiblilty that they are "lineal descendants." It is
> contradictory, and a source of debate. The tribe in question is the
It's not really a contridiction. First, let's look at what a lineal
descendent is. A lineal descendent is simply someone who is descended in a
direct line from someone. For example, I am the lineal descendent of my
great, great, great grandmother. Now, let's pretend for a moment. Let's
pretend that my great, great, great grandmother was a Cherokee. And she
married my great, great, great grandfather, who was Irish. Now, their
offspring sometimes married other whites, and they sometimes married other
Cherokees, and once they even married a Mohawk who got lost in Georgia. Oh
yeah -- I forgot to say I'm pretending I'm from Georgia. Now, my great great
great grandmother (is that far enough back to be on the Cherokee Trail of
Tears?) hid out from Jackson's forced death march; and the troops never found
her, or her descendents, and they never re-established ties with Quallah
Boundary or Oklahoma,and they never established a separate government of
their own. Now, that would make me a lineal descendent of the Cherokees (and
the Mohawks; remember that one Mohawk that got lost), but it would not make
me a member of a Cherokee nation.
Now, what exactly is a wannabee? A wannabee is someone who wants to be
something they are not. That "something" MIGHT be an Indian, but it isn't
necessarily an Indian. A wannabee could be a wannabee Jew. At ten, I was a
wannabee Greek goddess. So "wannabee" is a term that could have been
properly applied to me, even though I wasn't a wannabee Indian. If you want
to be a member of a Cherokee nation, and you are not a member of a Cherokee
nation, then "wannabee" could mean "wannabee Cherokee".
> Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees, which Don has labelled as wannabes.
Meaning "wannabee members of the Cherokee nation", not "wannabee descendents
of Indians"
> This is remarkable since all of the GTEC <around 500 members> can document
> their ancestry, and most, if not all, are above 1/8 Cherokee. Seeing that
> the CNO has no "mininum blood" and the EB was 1/16 <when they were
> accepting applicants>, this is also a slap to Don. That is what HE
> brought up, that they are wannbes, when they are not. That is why this
Rick, you have a right to help create a community of folks who are the
descendents of the Cherokee nation, and who may even be anthropolgically
"Indians". I know someone who belongs to the "Sons of Italy", which is an
organization for descendents of Italians in this country. Both his mother
and his father immigrated from Italy, so he is a 100% lineal descendent of
Italians. But he is not Italian. His association with the Sons of Italy
gives him a chance to be involved with some aspects of Italian culture, which
are important to him, and to associate with other folks who speak Italian,
but it does not make him an Italian.
> thread continues under that arguement. Maybe you can send Don and
> Sheridan a message as well, since they continue debating it also, even in
> the face of the reality that the people being spoken of are Indians.
>
They are reading this, I'm sure. If they disagree with me, I'm sure I'll
hear about it.
And, anyway, I'm afraid of Don and Sheridan. They might investigate me, and
find out I'm really only a wannabee Greek goddess. And Sheridan is studying
law, and he might sue the Cherokee Princess Enterprises (tm), and then where
would I be? (smile)
dumb...@fishnet.com
>
> And, anyway, I'm afraid of Don and Sheridan. They might investigate me, and
> find out I'm really only a wannabee Greek goddess. And Sheridan is studying
> law, and he might sue the Cherokee Princess Enterprises (tm), and then where
> would I be? (smile)
>
> Sondra
>
Well, Sondra, a while back, someone (don't remember who) said something
about your sense of humor being "too heavy" (or something like that),
and I was tending to agree, but you get my vote for the funniest post of
the day on this one!
ROTFL!
yours truly,
gettin' old and petrified,
Dumbdrum
Richard Anthony Drezek
On 19 May 1998, Aimfl wrote:
> >Richard Anthony Drezek wrote:
>
>
>
> >You are pretty sick to come up with that.
>
> I appreciate your concern, I do at present have the flue,. Thank You.
I suspect that the flu might not be all. Emotional probs resulting from
your insecurity from being half white are obvious. As I have said before,
it is nothing to be ashamed about. You should be proud that you are half
white, and half Indin.
> >What are you?
>
> What am I. I am a human being a Iyeska Ikce Wicasa nothing less,
> nothing more.
I answered that question. You do, however, like to snip things away from
their relating sentences, and thereby give the impression that the person
you are responding to meant something else.
>
> It would be most likely, particularly for the group to which you promote, that
> they are remnants of being Tsalagi or lineal descendants. That is taking for
> granted as fact all reasonable assertions that you have made and within their
> petition.
"remnants of being tsalagi." Alrighty there, bub.
> Hmm, When did I state ashamedness at being half white-Finnish. Er, never. My
No, you don't have to say it straight out to infer it in every post. You
constantly talk about who is and isn't Indian, and blood amount is a big
problem with you and the amount of Cheorkees who have little Cheorkee
blood. As I have said before, if you married a Finn, your children will
most likely look like little white kids. Would you hate them, as well,
due to thier "low blood quantums"?
> grandfather was a military leader during Finland's 1917 war with Russia and
> again during he 1930's. I know and am proud of my families history in that
> regard.
In that regard. that leaves room for something else. You are obviously
not proud of the whiteness. You are half white, possibly more, since i
don't know about your papa. So does it matter? It shouldn't.
thisconstant bellowing about low blood is for the birds. It is up to each
group to decide the "limit" and you should not interfere or talk down on
those that have smaller amounts of Indian ancestry.
> >Don and you the one who began the indulgence in the
> >phrase "lineal descendants"
>
> Actually, we did not invent the term. It is used by historians and genologists
But point taken is that you started using in this discussion, and then
asked in your last post for "lineal descendants" to stop using that term.
Another contradiction. They add up and you cannot just keep swishing them
away like you are right all the time, it is at least honorable to admit
when you are wrong, and you don't, especially in what is supposed to be an
educated coversation. You revert to name claling or insult more often
than not, so I wonder what you respect in return.
> to describe that part makeup of which a person can no longer be part of or
> legally identify with. For example a person who is 1/4000 African is no longer
> recognizable as an African and no longer a citizen of an African country but
> can claim lineal descendancy from Africa. Similarly many groups in the
> southeast applying for federal acknowledgement left their nation and remained
> in non-Indian communities for the last 150 years. Again presuming all of the
> individuals in the GTEC had relatives that 150 years ago were part of the
> Tsalagi Nation then these individuals would have a legal and moral claim to be
> lineal descendants not one to create a nation.
Since you make broad statements, I will also include a broad answer to
refute you. What about the MANY CNO Dawes Roll enrollees whose
descendants moved out of
Okie into neighboring states. They lost their identity as Cherokee from
1900 to 1990s and all of a sudden are applying again for memebershop and
getting accepted, after a search in the family tree and the Dawes ROll.
Now I am talking about Dawes Roll descendants. So are they any less
Cheorkee? No. Even though they have had nothing to do with their culture
for 90 years and have lived outsid eof the Cheorkee Naiton in other states
and Urban cities, they still apply and get accepted. They are the ones
who made the current membership grow in leaps and bounds. So what do you
think of them? You postion is again contradictory, because if you apply
your stance to them, you would be calling them non-Cheorkee as well.
> >I am not speaking of the 1990 census. Try 1890, or 1840, 1850, 1920, >1930.
>
> In the south, prior to the 1950's most census records reco"white" or colored.
> Please direct me to a United States census for Dahlonga, GA or any Georgia
> county during those periods that shows any American Indians listed on the
> United States cenus for that period.
There is no -specific- census that was taken for them, they are on
different censuses in different counties. But they are listed as Indian,
and I do have family listed as Indian on the census where they lived. I
also have copies of cenusus records, and in 1880 there was definitely and
"Indian" category. get your facts straight, as you you cannot seem to do.
>
> >Although it does take work, and I know you might not be used to
> >researching considering half the stuff you post is contrary to the fact
> >regarding this topic.
>
> I can only respond by asking if you have ever taken law courses and understand
> the relevant research required therein.
I am speaking of simple research. Something that you cannot do. Perhaps
you can go to a library, get a couple of books about Cheorkees, and see
what they say. That is even simpler.
And law courses would not help you look up people on censuses, since that
is the action I suggested.
>
> What kind of government do they have? It can not be a traditional Tsalagi
> government as the authority for such went to OK on the trail of tears-save the
> individuals in Quallah. It could not be a IRA Tribal Council form as without
Save those in Quallah? You are so contradtictory it is not even funny.
Save those in Quallah since you think they are the only ones. did you
know that Qualla was incorporated and held by a white man for many years?
Very tradtional in government. Now, yes, the whole time, no. SO GTEC is
now tradtional in gov. They have districts, Justices, Council, and a
Chairman as well. Why don't you contact them yourself, and learn
firsthand, instead of constantly posting about them ignorantly.
I amsure if you are polite and tell them exactly who you are and what
your intentions are they will tell you about their government. They also
have a Web page, so maybe you could go check it out. Search in yahoo, it
will prbably come up.
> > Strange, however, is that each and every family member also found
> >another Indian to marry.
>
> Strange indeed! The population you described at 500 CURRENTLY. Indigenous
> populations have grown from 200,000 to 1,800,000 since the turn of the century.
Wow, my family is 500???? Interesting. Of course, I was speaking of my
family, but when you constantly cut things out of context liek that it
doesn't look like it.
I said MY fmaily found other Indians to marry, so all of the bull you
posted thereafter is unrelated!
> Ignoring the fact that every mathmatical figure I can come up with utilizing
> that growth pattern indicates 1 person-or usually a fraction of a person,
> generated those 500-it is mystifying how over 150 years -what must have been a
Now lemme see, there are were quite a bit more who stayed behind or LEFT
Okie to come back than one person, though you refuse to acknowledge it
since you just don't care to increase your knowledge by actually exploring
this area yourself.
ricky
Aimfl
>son...@jaguarsystems.com wrote:
>If they disagree with me, I'm sure I'll>hear about it.
No you were right on target.
>They might investigate me, and>find out I'm really only a wannabee Greek
goddess
goddess huh? Which one? Just curious
> And Sheridan is studying >law, and he might sue the Cherokee Princess
Enterprises (tm), and then where >would I be? (smile)
Hmm never thought of that. Could sue :) on behalf of the cruise ships cause
maybe they have called the Cherokee Princess,.
Sheridan
Aimfl
> Richard Anthony Drezek <rdr...@uic.edu> wrote:
>Emotional probs resulting from>your insecurity from being half white are
obvious.
I am fairly secure in the concept that my mom is white. Ever seen a Finn who
was not a Sammi. REALLLY white, as in non-tannable. Color challenged even.
>half Indin.
Whats an Indin? Lakota
> I answered that question.
How can one answer a question they are asking someone else. Does that not
impart a lack of respect for dialouge?
>. You >constantly talk about who is and isn't Indian, and blood amount is a
big
>problem with you
Whats a problem for me, as an individual who for 13 1/2 years has been the
executive director of an Indian rights organization and an activist for more
than 15 is that wanabee's-more importantly faux tribes and faux spiritual
leaders create confusion among an already ignorant dominant society and cause
more pain for Indigenous peoples who have suffered as victims of a 504 year war
of genocide from Yellowknife to Tierra del Fuego. My "problem" is that Indian
women in Florida suffered due to the confusion about the Indian child welfare
act caused by groups pretending to be tribes. My 'problem" is that after a
three-year struggle the Florida DOC allowed a pilot project to permit Indian
inmates to practice traditional forms of spirituality. The program has been
suspended by DOC because of complaints by wanabee's regarding the exclusion of
phony medicine people and because the Indian inmates were frustrated that the
wanabee's outnumbered them and were beginning to demand the right to set
policy. So the Indian inmates iin Florida still have no ability to pray the way
they learned as kids and no right to pray their traditional way. My problem is
that faux tribes so corrupted the NAGPRA process in the southeast that real
Indian spiritual leaders who eschew enrollment have had to be excluded from the
discussions because these wanabee's demanded representation and in order to
legally bar them enrollement had to be used as the guage. Several IRA Councils
have granted status for NAGPRA purposes to these spiritual leaders but the
confusion was set. My problem is that no Indian in Florida has the ability to
access medical care or Voc-rehab services designed for Indian people. The
so-called Lower Muscogee Creek Tribe ran a Voc-Rehab program by being the
recipient of all 14 block grants totaling $500,000 annually. Not a single
enrolled Indian was ever serviced by the program which served 150-190 people
annually. The monies were intended for Indian peoples. Thats my problem with
"wanabee's" I could care less about the individual who claims their great
grandmother was Tsalagi or whatever. Maybe they are a lineal descendant but
they have no right or authority to start a tribe like one starts a club. Nor
can they suddenly be spiritual leaders.
> Would you hate them, as well, >due to thier "low blood quantums"?
If these hypothetical children qualified for citizenship in a legitimate
Nation great. If not they would be lineal descendants who certianly had no
right to start their own "tribe"
> You are obviously>not proud of the whiteness
Huh? I reiterate, " > grandfather was a military leader during Finland's 1917
war with Russia and >> again during he 1930's. I know and am proud of my
families history in that
>> regard. again ever seen a Finn. They are very white color wise and are
certainly caucasian and are european .
>thisconstant bellowing about low blood is for the birds.
First I would respond by asking you to review the milk-water argument. Secondly
you, not I respond with this argument. My discussion is about the illegitimate
claim by several groups to be a Nation. Further we stated our opposition to
State recognition. You and Mr. Adam choose to consistently revist the question
of bq.
>But point taken is that you started using in this discussion, and then
>asked in your last post for "lineal descendants" to stop using that term.
I would ask when and where we asked that the term stop being used. I find it
apt, although sterile.
>What about the MANY CNO Dawes Roll enrollees whose >descendants moved out of
>Okie into neighboring states. They lost their identity as Cherokee from >1900
to 1990s and all of a sudden are applying again for memebershop and >getting
accepted,
First such an action would not validate the efforts of GTEC to be a Nation.
How the CNO, a Nation chooses to conduct its membership is up to its
government-something GTEC can not have. Secondly many were not enrolled due to
bq requirements which were lowered in the 1980's and again in the 1990's.
Finally relocation was forced by the BIA through a varietry of programs.
>Even though they have had nothing to do with their culture >for 90 years and
have lived outsid eof the Cheorkee Naiton in other states >and Urban citie
First I think it is presumptious to state that individuals who, the majority
have, relatives within CNO in OK had "nothing" to with their culture. Secondly
you do not comprehend the meaning of citizenship. A US citizen living for 20
years in China is still a US citizen. You, by your own statements, have stated
these Georgia folks signed on to the US Census as American Indians. While I can
not find such a category in US census records of Georgia prior to 1960, lets
say they did. The US Census counts citizens of the US and more recently legal
aliens due to the suits of municipalities and counties seeking more federal
dollars for their larger than recorded populations. Now please note your
statement that these Georgia Cherokee folks were on the US Census as far back
as 1890. " Prior to 1924 Indians could not be US citizens and therefore not
accounted for on the US Census. Indian people were counted in census taken by
the US War Department where the BIA was located before the transfer to
Interior-no records of Georgia Indians taken after removal. So if these people
in Georgia recorded themselves on the US census it stands to reason that there
is documentary evidence they rescinded their citizenship in Cherokee Nation and
accepted US citizenship. Get it.
>There is no -specific- census that was taken for them, they are on >different
censuses in different counties.
When did counties get in the expensive action of taking cenus figures? Okay
where are these records. Their is no record in the US census for Georgia
counties of a Indian population, please direct me to documentary evidence and
tract #'s that support your hypothesis.
>I >also have copies of cenusus records, and in 1880 there was definitely and
>"Indian" category. get your facts straight, as you you cannot seem to do.
Sir, in 1880 American Indians were not citizens of the United States, in fact
many Indian Nations remained in a state of war with the United States so why do
records available at US Depository libraries only record white and colored?
>
> I am speaking of simple research. Something that you cannot do. Perhaps
>you can go to a library, get a couple of books about Cheorkees, and see
>what they say.
I prefer to talk to Tsalagi people rather than read books about them. I have
found Indian people know more about themseleves than books.
> And law courses would not help you look up people on censuses, since that
>is the action I suggested.
I would ask that you refer me to the census and tract number which supports
your statements. I have access to several US Depository libraries at the
University of South Florida and Stetson and have not found any documentary
evidence that supports your claim. Further any US Army document that provides
evidence of a community of Cherokee living in Daholonga, GA would also be
helpful as the US Army was quite concrned with those who fled and resisted the
Trail of Tears and recorded extensively regarding the Seminole and Quallah.
>Save those in Quallah? You are so contradtictory it is not even funny. >Save
those in Quallah since you think they are the only ones. did you >know that
Qualla was incorporated and held by a white man for many years?
Incorporation is a requirement of IRA. The 1934 Howard-Wheeler Act. The United
States has been held by white people for 200 years it does not make Indian
Nations ensconced by it any less traditional. Incorporation is required for IRA
but traditional governments exist extant of IRA.
>Now, yes, the whole time, no
Huh, Quallah retain their culture and traditional government and has had an IRA
government for many years. GTEC can have authorty for neither at the present
moment.
> Why don't you contact them yourself, and learn >firsthand, instead of
constantly posting about them ignorantly.
As I have stated repeatedly I have contacted them, been there. Listened to
their stories as well as individual Indians in Georgia opposed to them such as
Tom Bearpaw, Nadine Horn, Paul Eddy, Cleto Montelongo, Aaron Two Elk ,
Katherine Coolidge and others who are party to a suit against Georgia for
taking the questionable legal step of recognzing them.
>I amsure if you are polite and tell them exactly who you are and what >your
intentions are they will tell you about their government.
Again already done that, back in 1992 and 1993.
>They also >have a Web page, so maybe you could go check it out. Search in
yahoo, it
>will prbably come up.
I could call myself Michael Jordan, incorporate myself as such, get a
resoultion from Florida saying I'm Michael Jordan and set up a web page,. But
you know what I still couldn't play basketball for a darn
>I said MY fmaily found other Indians to marry, so all of the bull you >posted
thereafter is unrelated!
Interesting way to take things out of context. I was referring to your
relatives at GTEC and the improbability and statistical impossibility of your
and their assertions. And I suspect you know that,
> Now lemme see, there are were quite a bit more who stayed behind or LEFT
>Okie to come back than one person, though you refuse to acknowledge it
>since you just don't care to increase your knowledge by actually exploring
>this area yourself.
>
Mr. Drezek, please xplain why their population-you put at 500, has grown at a
significantly, extremely significantly almost moribund rate compared to the
slow growth of the general American Indian population. In 1900 the US War
Department placed the population of American Indians in the United States at
200,000. In 1995 an estimate placed Indian population at 1,870,000. Thats a
growth rate of 16,700 per year or 8.3% from the original base figure of
200,000. Now with that growth rate in reverse for your GTEC-at 500 there would
be a drop of 41 people per year. Now the GTEC would be a unique population
group because you assert that there are many fullbloods and half bloods which
means outside influence on the growth rate is modified. Further you state they
have remained there, outside of the forced transitory nature of many Indian
Nations members (relocation programs etc). Therefore it appears to me to be a
statistical improbability that which you claim could be. I do not dispute that
these individuals can trace ancestry to a Tsalagi 150 years ago. However to
claim they remain fullblooded Cherokee I find statistically improbable.
Sheridan Murphy
son...@jaguarsystems.com
In article <3561E5...@fishnet.com>,
dumb...@fishnet.com wrote:
> Well, Sondra, a while back, someone (don't remember who) said something
> about your sense of humor being "too heavy" (or something like that),
> and I was tending to agree, but you get my vote for the funniest post of
> the day on this one!
>
Thank you! And also, thank you for the feedback that I was getting "too
heavy" in my humor. I am hoping to master writing humor, amd knowing I have
been "too heavy" is wonderful feedback for me!
Sondra
kdawn
Sondra...i love all your humor and especially the "heavy" humor....because it
not only gives me (and others) a good and usually much needed laugh but also
makes me think. Humor is a great way to communicate it is a great gift to
share.
kdawn
son...@jaguarsystems.com
In article <199805201424...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
ai...@aol.com (Aimfl) wrote:
>
> >They might investigate me, and>find out I'm really only a wannabee Greek
> goddess
> goddess huh? Which one? Just curious
(Oh no! They're asking questions already. What will I say?)
(Oh, I know)
Now, Sheridan, if you go back to your ancient Greek mythology, you will find
that there were lots of Greek gods and goddesses. I'm one of the very
important Greek goddesses. And I've studied under other very important Greek
goddesses and gods, too.
(Now, if that doesn't work, I can always claim to a Nordic goddess. ... Oh
no, that's right, his mother is Finnish!)
>
> > And Sheridan is studying >law, and he might sue the Cherokee Princess
> Enterprises (tm), and then where >would I be? (smile)
>
> Hmm never thought of that. Could sue :) on behalf of the cruise ships cause
> maybe they have called the Cherokee Princess,.
>
I will counter sue. That cruise ship couldn't possibly be a real descendent
of a Cherokee princess! Not even that world-famous cherokee princess could
birth a boat!
At least, I don't think she could. I know she birthed a lot of kids -- a
whole boatload of kids probably.
Hmmmm -- maybe that's how it happened! She birthed a boat full of kids! Oh
no! She birthed a Cherokee Princess boat!
Gotta go now. Gotta call my lawyer.
Sondra
http://www.jaguarsystems.com/sondra/
Richard Anthony Drezek
On 20 May 1998, Aimfl wrote:
> I am fairly secure in the concept that my mom is white. Ever seen a Finn who
> was not a Sammi. REALLLY white, as in non-tannable. Color challenged even.
Sure have, I have a friend who is half-finn half Indian as well.
Although she got some of mama's color.
> >half Indin.
>
> Whats an Indin? Lakota
>
> > I answered that question.
> How can one answer a question they are asking someone else. Does that not
> impart a lack of respect for dialouge?
No, it is a question that did not need your answer, also known as
rhetoric. Of course in your reply, you will delete "rhetoric" and respond
to the part of the sentence I wrote before. I expect that of you since
you chop sentences in half and reply to the part you want to twist into
something else.
> so-called Lower Muscogee Creek Tribe ran a Voc-Rehab program by being the
> recipient of all 14 block grants totaling $500,000 annually. Not a single
I am not a Creek, and I am not Lower Muscogee Creek either. We are
discussing, or were, Cherokee Indians who are state-recognized.
> enrolled Indian was ever serviced by the program which served 150-190 people
> annually. The monies were intended for Indian peoples. Thats my problem with
> "wanabee's" I could care less about the individual who claims their great
I also have the same problem with wannabes. However, people who can
document their Indian ancestry are not wannabes, and the group we were
talking about can do so.
> they have no right or authority to start a tribe like one starts a club. Nor
> can they suddenly be spiritual leaders.
We have differing opinions as to state rec, and mine is obviously not
changing, and yours is not either. As to the sceond part, which of the
GTEC, since that is who we are talking about, has suddenly become a
spiritual leader? Please give me a name. Otherwise, I agree with you.
> If these hypothetical children qualified for citizenship in a legitimate
> Nation great. If not they would be lineal descendants who certianly had no
> right to start their own "tribe"
IF they qualified for citizenship? What about those who do not qualify?
What about some Blackfeet I know whose brothers and sisters could enroll
on less than 1/4 blood, and now that the blood quantum went up around the
1960s, those siblings born after, with the same amount of blood, are
unenrolled. And they live just like thier bros and sis. According o you,
they are just "lineal descendants" since they do not qualify for
citizenship. As for some Cherokee fulls who cannot enroll, are they just
"lineal descendants" too? You know, you contradict so much. It is
enough. It seems you have an agenda and no matter what means you go
through <lie, contradict, etc.> you will feel ok as long as your point is
the one that look slike it is better.
> war with Russia and >> again during he 1930's. I know and am proud of my
> families history in that
> >> regard. again ever seen a Finn. They are very white color wise and are
> certainly caucasian and are european .
You are proud of what your white grandfather did, but you are not proud
of being half-white. Sheridan, with all of your contradictory talk on
blood and who and who isn't Indian, it shows.
> First I would respond by asking you to review the milk-water argument. Secondly
I find the milk-water arguement to be bull, although it is a cute story.
Go tell the milk-water arguement to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, or
the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, or the Pequots, or Sault Ste. Marie
Chippewas; and all the other tribes who have MANY memebers who are more
white than Indian, actually people who are MOSTLY white with little
Indian, with the fullblood population
being much lower than the "white Indian" population. Go tell them that
they are all water, Sheridan, since that is the way you believe.
And you, Mr. Miphy, are just murky water, according to your arguement.
> claim by several groups to be a Nation. Further we stated our opposition to
> State recognition. You and Mr. Adam choose to consistently revist the question
> of bq.
You brought the bq subject up, saying they are wannbes. I responded. DO
not make false statements and expect them to not be contested, as with the
bq one of the Cherokee Nation as "1/64th limit" or GTEC is a "wannabe"
group.
> >But point taken is that you started using in this discussion, and then
> >asked in your last post for "lineal descendants" to stop using that term.
>
> I would ask when and where we asked that the term stop being used. I find it
> apt, although sterile.
Don't remember? You posted that maybe if "they" alluding to the GTEC,
would stop calling themselves "lineal descendants" it would be better.
reread your posts on this subject for the past week, I don't think you
have that bad of a memory. I hope not at least, cause that must suck for
finals week.
>
> First such an action would not validate the efforts of GTEC to be a Nation.
First I didn't mention GTEC there. I was speaking of CNO.
>
> First I think it is presumptious to state that individuals who, the majority
> have, relatives within CNO in OK had "nothing" to with their culture. Secondly
I specifically mentioned the group that had been seperated formt their
culture since the Dawes, and since you cannot read, you failed to notice
it.
> you do not comprehend the meaning of citizenship. A US citizen living for 20
> years in China is still a US citizen. You, by your own statements, have stated
> these Georgia folks signed on to the US Census as American Indians. While I can
> not find such a category in US census records of Georgia prior to 1960, lets
> say they did. The US Census counts citizens of the US and more recently legal
I was speaking of all lineal descendants, not just those in GA. Some in
my family are listed as "I" in the race category. On the top of the
census, it recommends using "I" for Indian, "W" for white, "B" for black.
I am through talking about this. If you really do not know that then I
cannot help you, you will remain ignorant and keep lying to push you ideas
of them being "wannabes". There are many censuses, and different years,
etc. Each year wasn't the same, and yes, putting an "I" down was
definitely an option on most censuses.
>
> When did counties get in the expensive action of taking cenus figures? Okay
> where are these records. Their is no record in the US census for Georgia
Ok, I know it is hard to understand, bu there is this littel category for
"RACE" and one of the options of the census man had was to mark Indian,
white, or black, or on some, colored <which often included Indians>.
>
> Sir, in 1880 American Indians were not citizens of the United States, in fact
> many Indian Nations remained in a state of war with the United States so why do
> records available at US Depository libraries only record white and colored?
refer to previous sentence of mine.
> >what they say.
>
> I prefer to talk to Tsalagi people rather than read books about them. I have
> found Indian people know more about themseleves than books.
Not talking about culture, Sheridan. And you know that, so don't try to
twsit it around. Talking about research, censuses, population stats, etc.
> Incorporation is a requirement of IRA. The 1934 Howard-Wheeler Act. The United
> States has been held by white people for 200 years it does not make Indian
> Nations ensconced by it any less traditional. Incorporation is required for IRA
> but traditional governments exist extant of IRA.
A coroporation owned by a white person is a requirement of IRA? Do you
even know about the EB or its history, that the corp. was woned by Will
Thomas?
> >I amsure if you are polite and tell them exactly who you are and what >your
> intentions are they will tell you about their government.
> Again already done that, back in 1992 and 1993.
Who'd you speak to?
>
> I could call myself Michael Jordan, incorporate myself as such, get a
> resoultion from Florida saying I'm Michael Jordan and set up a web page,. But
> you know what I still couldn't play basketball for a darn
Yo, your head is pretty thick. i said to go look it up. That would be
as in, INFORMATIONAL PUROPOSES, not to see how a web page validates them.
You really don't know the syntax English, or context when reading.
>
> Interesting way to take things out of context. I was referring to your
> relatives at GTEC and the improbability and statistical impossibility of your
> and their assertions. And I suspect you know that,
As I have said before, my relatives are not enrolled at GTEC, therforeyou
really don't read and comprehend anything and forget and mis-quote.
> statistical improbability that which you claim could be. I do not dispute that
> these individuals can trace ancestry to a Tsalagi 150 years ago. However to
> claim they remain fullblooded Cherokee I find statistically improbable.
I didn't say they remained fullblood, I said some in my family remained
fullblood, and are still living, and can trace their ancestry. I am not.
I am mixed, but I have aunts and uncles, and people in my cousin's family
who are full.
ricky
ovation
>> find the milk-water arguement to be bull, although it is a cute story.
>Of couyrse you do, it invalidates your argument. Your position is that one
>trace element of milk, in what is obviously a glass of water, would make
the
>water milk.
Gee... I thought I brought up the water milk thing :o)
Sheridan... maybe this person thinks they can just go and buy some power
milk and add up hehehehe
Some words to Anthony Drezek... A glass of water will always be a glass of
water... you cannot make milk from water, no matter how much the box the
powder comes in tells you it is milk... it will never be milk...
Aimfl
>: Richard Anthony Drezek wrote:
>No, it is a question that did not need your answer, also known as>rhetoric
I belive you mean rhetorical, not rhetoric
>I am not a Creek, and I am not Lower Muscogee Creek either. We
are>discussing, or were, Cherokee Indians who are state-recognized.
It is interesting how you change the topic. In any event my response was a
direct response to your query's about my "problem" with these groups. The
LMCT, GTEC and others like them are similar in nature and their argument for
validation are strikingly similar as anyone who has dealt with these
organizations can tell you.
> I also have the same problem with wannabes. However, people who can
>document their Indian ancestry are not wannabes, and the group we were
>talking about can do so.
AGAIN, if they can document they should apply for citizenship with CNO, UKB or
Eastern Band. If they do not qualify then they are lineal descendants.
>F they qualified for citizenship? What about those who do not qualify? >What
about some Blackfeet I know whose brothers and sisters could enroll >on less
than 1/4 blood, and now that the blood quantum went up around the >1960s, those
siblings born after, with the same amount of blood, are >unenrolled.
I presume you missed the KBIC drama with Fred Dakota and fight for justice.
Unenrolling or disenrolling is illegal, unethical and violates most tribes
constitutions. If they did not apply for citizenship prior to the change they
have no case except to apply for change in the rules. Its odd because most
tribes are expanding enrollment rather than reducing.
>As for some Cherokee fulls who cannot enroll, are they just >"lineal
descendants" too?
I seriously doubt that are a significant number of Cherokee fullbloods who
"can not" enroll in any of the three IRA Tribal Councils. Those that are not do
so for political beliefs and are not interested in enrolling and I honestly
have never met an Indian person who was not enrolled who was so vehemently
passionate about the subject as yourself.
> You are proud of what your white grandfather did, but you are not proud
>of being half-white
If you can seperate what he did, from who he was then thats a trick I have not
yet mastered.
>Sheridan, with all of your contradictory talk on >blood and who and who isn't
Indian, it show
Mostly you have been typing about who is and isn't. I have been posting about
sovereignty and trying to address the incorrectness and innacurracies of your
statements as well as the position of Florida AIM.
> find the milk-water arguement to be bull, although it is a cute story.
Of couyrse you do, it invalidates your argument. Your position is that one
trace element of milk, in what is obviously a glass of water, would make the
water milk.
>GTEC is a "wannabe">group.
They are. I defy anyone to visit them and report back that they are an Indian
tribe/Nation under the definition of a Indian/Tribe Nation as per international
law.
> First I didn't mention GTEC there. I was speaking of CNO.
No, but your efforts have been consistently to utilize CNO as a means to
validate the GTEC.
> I specifically mentioned the group that had been seperated formt their
>culture since the Dawes, and since you cannot read, you failed to notice
Oh, I saw what you wrote and responded to it. in direct correlation to what
you wrote.>First I think it is presumptious to state that individuals who, the
majority >> have, relatives within CNO in OK had "nothing" to with their
culture. >Secondly
>I was speaking of all lineal descendants, not just those in GA.
I was specifically dealing with the GTEC because that is where your efforts to
validate are going.
> Some in >my family are listed as "I" in the race category. On the top of
the
>census, it recommends using "I" for Indian, "W" for white, "B" for black.
Yes since 1970, actually the category today is American Indian/Alaskan Native
and Pacific Islander some forms began using "Native American" in the 1980
cenuss. But prior to 1924 it would be illogical for such a category to exist
since American Indians could not be US citizens.
> There are many censuses, and different years, >etc. Each year wasn't the
same, and yes, putting an "I" down was >definitely an option on most censuses.
Again I ask, please direct me to where such documents can be found. US Census
records have been taken every decade since 1790 and most US Depository
libraries have a collection-some more extensive than others. With both Stetson
Law College and the Univ of South Florida I am able to access these and have
yet to find the I category at all and have found no record of American Indians
in their census before 1930. The US War Department Bureau of Indian Affairs did
maintain records also available at some US Depository libraries. No record I
can find of an Indian population or community in Georgia after removal. They
did-curiously note populations at Quallaah and unknown in the Florida
Everglades. Again if these records exist I would like to see them. Please
direct me.
> Ok, I know it is hard to understand, bu there is this littel category for
>"RACE" and one of the options of the census man had was to mark Indian,
>white, or black, or on some, colored <which often included Indians>.
(Sigh) one more time
You asserted that these folks in Georgia had been recorded as Indians since
1890 on the census in direct response to my assertion that they had waived
their citizenship in Cherokee Nation. Yes, today the census includes space for
Native Americans/Alaskan Native/Pacific Islander. However prior to 1924 it did
not because American Indians were not citizens of the United States and
therefore not to be counted as part of the population of the United States of
America. Again I ask where is the records of these cenus you refer to.
Regarding the assertion that Indians were listed as colored. Do you not believe
taht a census taker, an agent of the United States government and sworn to
uphold its laws, in 1890 or 1900 for that matter would have overlooked Indians
illegaly living in Georgia? Further if they were listed as colored so, what.
Your assertion was that they never recinded their citizneship by listing
themselves as Indian on the census. Now we refer to colored-which legally
referred to Africans and for a significant time in the south-yes to Indian
people-but only after Removal was not as enforced as it would have been during
the period in question.
>Not talking about culture, Sheridan. And you know that, so don't try to
>twsit it around. Talking about research, censuses, population stats, etc.
Actually you were talking about history to be exact. As for cenusus and
populations again where do these records that buttress your argument of
communities of Cherokee people illegally living in Georgia and being recorded
as Indians by the census exist?
>Who'd you speak to?
We spoke to several people out there. SOme I would not have recorded. I am not
at my office, but as soon as I get back there June 1 I could give you the
entire laundry list of the key figures and state officials we talked to.
>As I have said before, my relatives are not enrolled at GTEC, therforeyou
>really don't read and comprehend anything and forget and mis-quote.
Hmm, ever talk to traditional Indians? If this statement confuses you as to its
relationship to the statement then perhaps you should spend more time with
them.
Aimfl
>son...@jaguarsystems.com wrote:
>Now, Sheridan, if you go back to your ancient Greek mythology, you will find
>that there were lots of Greek gods and goddesses. I'm one of the very
>important Greek goddesses. And I've studied under other very important Greek
>goddesses and gods, too.
Be specific are you asserting here that you are Venus or ...............
>Now, if that doesn't work, I can always claim to a Nordic goddess. ... Oh>no,
that's right, his mother is Finnish!)
ROTFL
> will counter sue. That cruise ship couldn't possibly be a real descendent
>of a Cherokee princess! Not even that world-famous cherokee princess could
>birth a boat!
Well Sondra let me know when you join Charlie Hill on tour :)
Sheridan
ovation
Well Scott... problem is... one drop does not make you a member of my
family!
I think many of you one drops think that this makes you Indian... well that
glass of water likes to think it is milk as well.... but we all can see
through water.
ovation
Sheridan,
No need to credit me for that... but thanks for a laugh :o) I am glad
you like it as well...
Seems those with a drop are the ones who are most offended by it...
Aimfl
> "ovation" wrote:
>Gee... I thought I brought up the water milk thing :o)
You did, however I like it alot it was, well a perfect descriptor. And I
thought I credited you awhile back. If you like I will credit you each and
every time-like "In the milk/water metaphor brought to us by ovation." You like
: )
>Some words to Anthony Drezek... A glass of water will always be a glass of
>water... you cannot make milk from water, no matter how much the box the
>powder comes in tells you it is milk... it will never be milk...
This should clear up this issue, should. But it will not. I believe Mr. Drezek
firmly believes if a minute traceable amount of milk is in a glass of what is
clearly water-came from the tape but the glass still had traces of milk, that
the glass would be one of milk to Mr. Drezek and he would struggle with
glasses of milk telling him-hey man thats water.
Sheridan Murphy
Wm. Scott Anderson
On Thu, 21 May 1998 18:27:19 -0500, "ovation" <ova...@midusa.net>
wrote:
>>> find the milk-water arguement to be bull, although it is a cute story.
>
>>Of couyrse you do, it invalidates your argument. Your position is that one
>>trace element of milk, in what is obviously a glass of water, would make
>the
>>water milk.
>
>Gee... I thought I brought up the water milk thing :o)
>
>Sheridan... maybe this person thinks they can just go and buy some power
>milk and add up hehehehe
>
>Some words to Anthony Drezek... A glass of water will always be a glass of
>water... you cannot make milk from water, no matter how much the box the
>powder comes in tells you it is milk... it will never be milk...
>
But you can never change the words of Attakullakulla. "One Drop" of
blood and he recognized you as family.
>
>
>
ovation
In 1989 my children and myself were ordered by the Sheriff not to walk on a
public sidewalk because we are Indian...
But since I am Shawnee and your post mentions Shawnee people I will come in
now at this time to let you know there are no more of my people in the area
you now speak of... sure there are plenty of people who claim they are
Shawnee.. but in fact they are not.... they are part of the many splinters
who wish to bleed the true people dry.
ovation
>He cannot enroll, while most of his
>family is enrolled And despite repeated attempts to do so on his part,
>they will not allow it since he is under 1/4.
Then this says the tribe says he is not a part of them... therefore he is
NOT from that tribe and if he is NOT considered Indian by that tribe then he
is NOT Indian...
Anyone can claim and play Indian all they like... but it does not make them
Indian!! No matter how much they demand they are...
Richard Anthony Drezek
On 22 May 1998, Aimfl wrote:
>
> It is interesting how you change the topic. In any event my response was a
> direct response to your query's about my "problem" with these groups. The
> LMCT, GTEC and others like them are similar in nature and their argument for
> validation are strikingly similar as anyone who has dealt with these
> organizations can tell you.
sentences as a whole, and chop them up and seperate them from their
context completely, so that you often respond to sentence fragments that
are not complete thought, and that is very ignorant on your part. And the
sad thing is that you do it consistently, and that when you are in error
you do not admit it.
>
> AGAIN, if they can document they should apply for citizenship with CNO, UKB or
> Eastern Band. If they do not qualify then they are lineal descendants.
AGAIN, if they are "lineal descendant" then they are NOT WANNABES.
> constitutions. If they did not apply for citizenship prior to the change they
> have no case except to apply for change in the rules. Its odd because most
> tribes are expanding enrollment rather than reducing.
Some tribes are not becoming more liberal on enrollment. The person I
know who is Blackfoot is
13/64 Blackfoot, and his siters and brothers are enrolled sine they did so
prior to the date in the 1960s when the blood quantum changed to 1/4
exactly, and 13/64 is just under 1/4. He cannot enroll, while most of his
family is enrolled And despite repeated attempts to do so on his part,
they will not allow it since he is under 1/4.
> I seriously doubt that are a significant number of Cherokee fullbloods who
> "can not" enroll in any of the three IRA Tribal Councils. Those that are not do
I did not say a significant number. It is not a large amount, certainly
nothing compared to the total CNO enrolled population today. But they
exist, and you must acknowledge that, even though it hurts your arguement
of -go enroll if you are real-.
>
> Mostly you have been typing about who is and isn't. I have been posting about
> sovereignty and trying to address the incorrectness and innacurracies of your
> statements as well as the position of Florida AIM.
I have been typing it in response to yuor postion on who is and isn't
Indian. It is you who first claimed they are wannabes, not me. I am
defending my postion with the info I have and that I have gathered and
researched about GTEC, and also from folks I know within that tribe. They
are not wannabes, they are all Cheorkee, and they can prove it.
Now as for "innaccuracies" in my postion on state-recognition, there is
nothing innaccurate about it. They are my opinions on the subject, and
one can either disagree or agree. You differ in opinion, and I respect
that. There are only two stances, agree or disagree about state-rec., and
you disagree with me. I really know people who disagree with it as well,
and that is fine. But what bothers me is your past claims about "lineal
descendants" and that the GTEC were wannabes, ad both you and DOn have
said that. That is what I vehemently oppose; when someone can prove their
ancestry, they are not "trying to be" or "wanting to be" but they actually
ARE of Indian descent.
> > find the milk-water arguement to be bull, although it is a cute story.
>
> Of couyrse you do, it invalidates your argument. Your position is that one
It doesn't invalidate my argument, anymore than it does yours.
> trace element of milk, in what is obviously a glass of water, would make the
> water milk.
Then you aren't milk OR water either Sheridan. So your arguement doesn't
really make sense, since you are the very essence of the milk-water
arguement. If you are going to say that milk and water mixed isn't milk
<Indian, in this context>, then you really contradict yourself, you are
telling yourself that you are not Indian. Summed up perfectly, you are a
mixed-blood calling other mixed-bloods wannabes because they do not have
"enough" Indian ancestry, or what you consider adequate Indian ancestry.
> >GTEC is a "wannabe">group.
When a group claims Indian ancestry, and can prove it, then they are not
"wanting to be" but they ARE of what ancestry they are claiming.
> No, but your efforts have been consistently to utilize CNO as a means to
> validate the GTEC.
No, my "efforts" in in response to your ignorant statments regarding
Cherokees in general, and their enrollment procedures, and your
unresearched blanket statements which you constantly change in order to
look as though you meant something else.
> >I was speaking of all lineal descendants, not just those in GA.
> I was specifically dealing with the GTEC because that is where your efforts to
> validate are going.
But you responded to the paragraph about my family as though I was
talking about GTEC, and I was making a point about "lineal descendtants"
in general, not specifically just those Cherokees enrolled in GTEC.
>
> > Some in >my family are listed as "I" in the race category. On the top of
> the
> >census, it recommends using "I" for Indian, "W" for white, "B" for black.
> Yes since 1970, actually the category today is American Indian/Alaskan Native
> and Pacific Islander some forms began using "Native American" in the 1980
> cenuss. But prior to 1924 it would be illogical for such a category to exist
> since American Indians could not be US citizens.
Ok, Sheridan, this is the last time I am going to tell you. There is a
column that runs from top to bottom on the 1880 census <just for example>
and other censuses prior as well. At the top, the heading in the box is
listed as *RACE*. As the cesnus taker fills out the census charts as he
goes to different houses as they did many times back in those days, he
fills out the family names, occupation, place of birth, etc. in their
apporpriate columns. At the top of the census, the instructions to the
census taker for listing race are "I" for Indian, "W" for white, etc. He
fills it out as he goes to each household. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE
DO-IT-YOURSELF- CENSUSES OF TODAY, as you fail to notice. the government
DID record race on the cesuses of those days, and you are truly
mis-informed or just plain ignorant since you cannot comprehend that. GO
CHECK FOR YOURSELF. I really don't have time to repeat commonhand
information over and over again for your ignorance, when you constantly
ignore it and act is though you are right, when you are mistaken.
> Again I ask, please direct me to where such documents can be found. US Census
> records have been taken every decade since 1790 and most US Depository
> libraries have a collection-some more extensive than others. With both Stetson
> Law College and the Univ of South Florida I am able to access these and have
> yet to find the I category at all and have found no record of American Indians
> in their census before 1930. The US War Department Bureau of Indian Affairs did
> maintain records also available at some US Depository libraries. No record I
Regualr census. Census taker marks "I". Very simple. It happened. If
you fail to notice that 'I" was an option on the everyday census of the
most 19th century decades, then you are really helpless.
> can find of an Indian population or community in Georgia after removal. They
> did-curiously note populations at Quallaah and unknown in the Florida
> Everglades. Again if these records exist I would like to see them. Please
> direct me.
I am not talking about a SPECIFIC CENSUS OF A Geaorgia group, but
censuses around the country which record individuals as Indian. It
happened in my family in the 1800s, in the ccounty where they lived. Very
simple. Yet it is so hard for you to understand.
> You asserted that these folks in Georgia had been recorded as Indians since
> 1890 on the census in direct response to my assertion that they had waived
> their citizenship in Cherokee Nation. Yes, today the census includes space for
No, I indicated that -some- Indians in GA had been recorded as -Indian-
in the once every decade census of the United States. <sigh>. I do not
feel that I should keep replying to your misconceptions when I have
expressed so plainly what I have previously stated so many times. You
must learn how to read. Maybe slowing down a bit will help you.
> illegaly living in Georgia? Further if they were listed as colored so, what.
A census taker sworn to uphold the laws marked many Powhatan tribal
memebers as colored when Indian was clearly an option, and also marked
many as white. Some Chickahominy and Mattaponi tribal memebers who were
clearly and predominantly Indian even went to the extent of having their
birth-certs. legally changed to indicate Indian. Yes, some of them have
black and white blood, but many are clearly Indian and were marked down
erroneously as something else. NOW THAT IS AN EXAMPLE respondin to your
statement about law abiding, sworn-in census takers. It shows you that
they marked Idnian as colored. And many Lumbees were also marked down as
colored, do to their mixed racial backgrounds. Yet they haled enaciously
to the Indian ancestry, while some are predominantly white or black.
Also, I would like to point ou the exapmle that the white wives of some
black men were marked dwon as black sometimes. That certianly doesn't fit
your statement avou the diligent census man.
> Your assertion was that they never recinded their citizneship by listing
> themselves as Indian on the census. Now we refer to colored-which legally
No, I NEVER stated that. What I stated is they are not wannabes due to
the fact that they ARE Indians, and can prove it. I find it increasingly
difficult to converse with you DUE TO THE FACT that you put words in to my
mouth.
> >Who'd you speak to?
> We spoke to several people out there. SOme I would not have recorded. I am not
> at my office, but as soon as I get back there June 1 I could give you the
> entire laundry list of the key figures and state officials we talked to.
Sure, e-mail them to me. I will not be checking e-mail after this until
mid-July, since I will be on vacation, so I will reply then.
> >As I have said before, my relatives are not enrolled at GTEC, therforeyou
> >really don't read and comprehend anything and forget and mis-quote.
>
> Hmm, ever talk to traditional Indians? If this statement confuses you as to its
> relationship to the statement then perhaps you should spend more time with
> them.
I have talked to many more tradtional Cherokees than you, and that has
nothing to do with the fact that you cannot comprehend that I am not
enrolled in GTEC.
Now, Sheridan, after today I am going to try my best to stay off this
topic since your are constantly twisting words around, specifically taking
sentences and chopping them up into fragments and responding to those,
since they are out of context, and thereofre making my opinions seem to be
something else. You repeatedly put words into my mouth, since either you
have a poor memory or do not thoroughly read something before posting,
which I find appalling given that you are a student like myself, and are
older than me, and SHOULD know better, but you do not. No matter how
eloquently you try to post mis-nformation or just plain old ignorance like
you do, it is still wrong, and no matter how often you put words in to
people's mouths, you are still wrong. I did enjoy talking about this with
you at first, but after it progressed into you not wanting to admit when
you are wrong, and constantly posting heresay athoritatively <such as the
"CNO has a 1/64 blood limit for membership", etc.>, it has turned into you
just having an agenda to push, with little scholastic activity on your
part, since you were the one claiming that they <GTEC> were wannabes. So,
let us leave this topic if possible, sicne it is not going anywhere and
certainly has no positive output or enjoyment.
Ricky
Richard Anthony Drezek
On 23 May 1998, Aimfl wrote:
>
> This should clear up this issue, should. But it will not. I believe Mr. Drezek
> firmly believes if a minute traceable amount of milk is in a glass of what is
No, he does not. Actually, he will defend those claimg "milk" ancestry
when it is postive proof that they have it. They are not wannabes when
the thing you think they "want" is something they already possess, and
that thing, the "milk" is Indian ancestry.
> clearly water-came from the tape but the glass still had traces of milk, that
> the glass would be one of milk to Mr. Drezek and he would struggle with
> glasses of milk telling him-hey man thats water.
I would not, but you are most certainly not "milk" Sheridan, if we must
adhere to the example you adopted. The trouble you have in accepting that
is your problem; you will shoot off at the mouth at others who are mixed
as well, but when it comes home you are pretty quiet.
>
>
> Sheridan Murphy
> ALL MUST RESIST SO THAT NONE ARE LEFT BEHIND
>
>
ricky
Richard Anthony Drezek
On Thu, 21 May 1998, ovation wrote:
> Some words to Anthony Drezek... A glass of water will always be a glass of
> water... you cannot make milk from water, no matter how much the box the
> powder comes in tells you it is milk... it will never be milk...
Ok? So what does that have to do with those who are Indian by blood and
can prove it? I certainly am not "box milk", if that is what you are
implying. I am quite a bit more than a "drop" of Indian, but I am
defending those that are Indian in ancestry and can prove it. Whatever
they choose to call themselves is up to them. If you would like to walk
up tp a CNO tribal member and tell them they are not Cherokee Indians due
to the fact that they have a "drop" of Cherokee blood, or that they are
more "water" than "milk" go right ahead.
ricky
Apple10
Without getting involved in the unpleasantries between the various combatants
on this thread, I have a piece of history that may shed some light on one point
of this question.
I live in West Virginia---prior to 1832 (when this land was still part of
Virginia) the boundary between the Shawnee land claims and the Cherokee land
claims was the Kanawha River (which is one block from my home.) In 1832 the
Shawnee NORTH of the river were forcibly removed although some families escaped
South of the river where their descendants live today along with many Cherokee
descendants.. About 20% of the population in WV has some Indian blood.
In 1863 WV was formed from the Northwestern counties of VA by Union force.
Although a "free" state, WV was officially a segregated state. There were a
number of laws passed by the first legislature including an act that officially
declared that there were only 2 classes of citizens in the state---White and
Colored. Indians were officially colored. Each county kept it's own census of
the race of each person and your race was defined by the County Clerk of your
county. There were several other laws passed against the Indian population
including one that made it illegal for 3 Indians to walk down the street
together -(called the "INDIAN INSURRECTION ACT") -Several men were
imprisoned for this crime and one southern WV sheriff used this as the excuse
to gun down an Indian he didn't like. These laws were on the books until 1965
when an omnibus bill changing the old racial laws was passed into law
following the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act. (As a historical
sidelight----West Virginia didn't officially repeal the part of the state
constitution making this a segregated state until 1990---We were the next to
last state to do this)
The point of this history lesson was to comment on the issue of Census
records---In WV they certainly existed but "INDIAN" was not even a choice---by
law you were white or colored in this state. If you were light skinned enough
it was definitely an advantage to be listed as white-----we had the same kind
of segregated schools, separate bathroom and restricted eating establishments
that were found farther south. This complicates our people's attempts to
enroll today in the BIA recognized tribes although some have been successful
in finding the necessary proofs.
I won't get into the debate between Sheriden, Don, Rick and others---I suspect
they'll never come to agreement on this.
fi...@digitalcave.com
In article <6kcvig$b5...@news.midusa.net>,
"ovation" <ova...@midusa.net> wrote:
>
> >He cannot enroll, while most of his
> >family is enrolled And despite repeated attempts to do so on his part,
> >they will not allow it since he is under 1/4.
>
> NOT from that tribe and if he is NOT considered Indian by that tribe then he
> is NOT Indian...
>
> Anyone can claim and play Indian all they like... but it does not make them
> Indian!! No matter how much they demand they are...
>
Dear Ovation,
Are you sure that you don't wish to reconsider your logic here? If a person's
full siblings and parents are all "Indian", then how could the fact that the
tribe doesn't want to enroll him make him not "Indian"? If your tribe kicked
you out for any reason, would you suddenly become "White" or "Asian" or such
instead of Indian?
Being "Indian" is not always the same as being enrolled.
Sincerely,
Wade Wofford.
Richard Anthony Drezek
On Tue, 26 May 1998 fi...@digitalcave.com wrote:
> > Anyone can claim and play Indian all they like... but it does not make them
> > Indian!! No matter how much they demand they are...
> >
>
> Dear Ovation,
>
> Are you sure that you don't wish to reconsider your logic here? If a person's
> full siblings and parents are all "Indian", then how could the fact that the
> tribe doesn't want to enroll him make him not "Indian"? If your tribe kicked
> you out for any reason, would you suddenly become "White" or "Asian" or such
> instead of Indian?
>
> Being "Indian" is not always the same as being enrolled.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Wade Wofford.
>
Excellent point, Wade. What "ovation" failed to understand is that the
laws in the tribe changed the minimum "blood quantum" to 1/4, and the
person I am dsicussing was born just after the change in laws, so that
all of his siblings were enrolled <he was the youngest> and so were all of
his family. How does a change in the laws of his tribe make him a
non-Indian "no matter how much they demand they are"? It doesn't. He is
jus unable to enroll due to circumstance.
ricky
Aimfl
> Richard Anthony Drezek
>> This should clear up this issue, should. But it will not. I believe Mr.
>Drezek>> firmly believes if a minute traceable amount of milk is in a glass of
what
>is water
>No, he does not. Actually, he will defend those claimg "milk" ancestry >when
it is postive proof that they have it.
Thats nice construction. Not even a but. However there is a contradiction
there glaring for all to see.
>They are not wannabes when>the thing you think they "want" is something they
already possess, and>that thing, the "milk" is Indian ancestry.
Hmm. If someone's last connection with any Indian is in 1758 and they up and
start claiming to be , say Cherokee and try to start their own Tribe. Yep thats
a wanabee. If they in conversation tell me that eleven generations back they
have a Cherokee relative-no thats not a wanabee.
> I would not, but you are most certainly not "milk" Sheridan, if we must
>adhere to the example you adopted. The trouble you have in accepting that >is
your problem; you will shoot off at the mouth at others who are mixed >as well,
but when it comes home you are pretty quiet.
I seriously doubt one can equate 50% of something to .024% as you have liked
to do. If your connection is your parents then that is something you can learn
from. Are you postulating that someone whose great, great, great, great, great,
great, great grandparent was Indian is equivelent to someone whose parent is
Indian ? There is no connection. A grandparent would be alive during the childs
life to learn from etc. Similarly a parent. Maybe even a great grandparent. A
great,great,great,great,great, great,great,great,great,great,grandparent is
something so far back it boggles the mind of a relationship beyond dna. I mean
eleven generations is a long time and tough to build the kind of relationship.
Your desperate effort to validate those who have minute or distant
relationships to being Indian is sad. Just be. I mean if their's some kind of
relationship to Indians thats valid thats nice, but to declare that because
somebody is 1/4096 or even 1/128 something the relationship is so distant its
silly. Where do you draw that line. Thats a question. An 1/8 would leave it at
great great grandparents. A 1/64 would leave it at great great great great
grandparents going back at least 120 years. I surmise those are issues which
we as Indian people and Nations can debate till doomsday. But to promote the
notion that one whose closest connection goes back eleven generations can make
a genuine claim to being something is preposterous. You think England would let
me sit on the throne if I claimed that one of my ancestors impregnated a
Windsor 120 years ago and therefore I have a claim?
Sipish
Ok guys, let me see if I got this right, according to your milk water agument
which by the way I am starting to take offense to, if my mom was 1/2 both her
parents being of mixed blood but "Indian" nonetheless, and my father (whoever
that may be, your guess is as good as mine) is undetermined, that still makes
me 1/4. Now I grew up being your little "indian" my grandmother as well as
great grandmother around to impart their oral traditions and stories on me, I
have always thought and been "Indian". But according to some folks if your
mixed (less than 1/2) your a wannabe? Thats not how we do it here i have to
tell you. See our people had to "assimilate" to survive. I dont call that
hiding now, I consider it doing what you have to do to survive. I think there
are exceptions to every rule, I do have to laugh when people tell me they have
an ancesto waay back who was supposed to be cherokee, which by the way I am
not.( I am Chumash,Mexican,Irish, and it makes me a fierce advesary or so I
have been told. ) However, when it comes to Federal Laws like NAGPRA or state
laws like CEQA, if you can prove your a lineal descendant then you have every
right to claim that ancestry no matter what your blood degree. In all of our
territory which strecthes far and wide, we have only one federally rec. group
and they are just as mixed up as the rest of us. Does this make them more
Indian than me? Does this give them a right to make claims to my ancestrral
villages or sacred sites.?... I think not, you see because they cannot claim
lineal descent from these places but I can. I hate all these stupid Milk water
arguments. Wish you guys would move on to something else.
Sipish
Richard Anthony Drezek
Dear Sheridan,
I am not going to be replying to your posts due to the fact that I will
not be in town. However, I would like to leave you with the fact that I
have census documents, namely, a copy of random 1880 census- single page-
for Kentucky< just for example, since the forms were the same in all
states>, and
indeed, "I" for "Indian" is listed in the upper right hand corner of the
sheet. It is a long piece of paper that the census taker filled out as he
went from house to house. Very simple. I am through corrceting you, as
you do not learn when you are mistaken. Unless, of course, the United
States was given to recording specifically people of Bobmbay , I must take
it that "Indian" written on the top of the Census <18880> stands for
Indians here, or Native American. If you cannot find that simple
evidence, then you are moronic, sicne it exists. I am not discussing with
you further since you are impossible to talk to, namely, you repat false
information over and over and then some more, even when you have been
corrected, and people have done much checking up on the topic, including
wade Wofford and CNO enrollment. I also have done much checking up on it,
and I know quite a few Cherokee genealogists who have done so as well; it
is not that hard, just a simple call long distance toCherokee Nation of
Oklahoma.
We ALL knew what CNO's requirments were, and you posting erroneously that
they are something different <1/64th blood minimum> is a crock of crap.
You are a deliberate liar. Reply to that if you wish, sugar-coat it, do
whatever, but the fact remains that you deliberately lied and everyone
noticed, and in your last post to Wade you STILL hold your postion that
they require 1/64 for enrollment, although you change it here and there to
make it look like you meant something else. And you can call the
Enrollment Office down at CNO to find out since you still hold
tenaciously to the argument.
Ricky
Aimfl
>sip...@aol.com
>Ok guys, let me see if I got this right, according to your milk water
agument>, if my mom was 1/2 both her>parents being of mixed blood but "Indian"
nonetheless, and my father >is undetermined, that still makes>me 1/4
Okay, fill a glass 1/4 with milk about 1./2 with water and looking at it tell
me what you got. We were using this regarding preposterous claims that people
who have 1/4096 blood should be considered Indians. I wonder if Bill Clinton
can say that Kenneth Star is persecuting him based on race. According to
several people on this ng it should.
>Now I grew up being your little "indian" my grandmother as well as
>great grandmother around to impart their oral traditions and stories on me,
good
>But according to some folks if your>mixed (less than 1/2) your a wannabe?
Who said that? We have stated a line should be drawn. Where is a good
question. Certainly 1/128 is getting silly-although several on this ng seem to
argue thats more than enough of a connection to claim Indian status and even
start up your own tribe. Certainly individuals whose parents and grandparents
are Indian have a connection. After that, it gets questionable. It certainly is
up to the Nations to determine citizenship and I find it humorous the most
vociferous statements in relation to support of 1/4096 and 1/128 folks come
from those who couldn't qualify for enrollment even without a blood quantum
requirement.
>See our people had to "assimilate" to survive. I dont call that>hiding now,
If your people, by that I assume you mean your immediate relatives,
assimilated how could you grow up "indian". Secondly our argument regareding
hiding has to dow ith the absurd claims of legitimacy from hosts of groups in
the southeast that claim to be remnants of families that ventured away from the
Trail of Tears or fled Oklahoma back to their homestead. The problem with the
enamasse argument is that two groups remained and suffered for it and were well
documented (Seminole and Quallah). No one dismisses the claim that some did
stay. But they choose to leave their nation and thereby lost citizenship
rights. Thats an entirely different thing from those victimized by the
boarding school assimilation process.
>However, when it comes to Federal Laws like NAGPRA or state>laws like CEQA, if
you can prove your a lineal descendant then you have every>right to claim that
ancestry no matter what your blood degree.
I do not see the relationship. NAGPRA involves governments, not individuals.
Prior to the hucksterism of groups like the GTEC and LMCT real spiritual
leaders who are not enrolled were consulted and provided forums at NAGPRA
Review Committee Hearings. Since that time several Nations including CNO,
Quallah, Tunica-Biloxi and Quallah have demanded the exclusion of individuals
who are not enrolled-as it is the only legal way to exclude such hucksters.
Some Nations IRA Councils have made various spiritual leaders their official
delegate on the NAGPRA issue. The LMCT in FL has convinced several people to
return Muscogee remains to them for their bizzare rituals which is a gross
affront to the people whose ancestors the remains really are. So if that was
your point, I vehemently disagree.
Sipish
Sheridan wrote:>We have stated a line should be drawn. Where is a good
>question.
I have thought long and hard on this very subject working almost daily with
NAGPRA issues and from what I have leaned, the feds are starting to recgonize
folks who can claim direct descendency no matter what there blood degree. Now
these folks have no connection to our culture or ways for all their lives then
all the sudden jump out of the bushes claiming indian ancestry. Now there being
heard and are actually in posistions to shape Ca Indian Policy, even to the
extent of changing the wording of NAGPRA to allow these folks who claim their
people hid out in the woods to participate in matters they have no right to.
These issues and policies which will ultimately affect my native children.
You must understand that I live on the west coast and our people faced the same
type of genocide as did tribes in other parts of these united states. The only
differnce being the original conqueres were carrying a cross.
>The LMCT in FL has convinced several people to
>return Muscogee remains to them for their bizzare rituals which is a gross
>affront to the people whose ancestors the remains really are. So if that was
not my point, my point being that remains be ruturned to people who can PROVE
direct ancestry. Ive seen the sham and the show, the bogus ritual, of those
pretending to be, the only thing I cant figure out is why do they do it?
Sipish
son...@jaguarsystems.com
In article <199805221458...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ai...@aol.com (Aimfl) wrote:
>
> >son...@jaguarsystems.com wrote:
>
> >Now, Sheridan, if you go back to your ancient Greek mythology, you will
find
> >that there were lots of Greek gods and goddesses. I'm one of the very
> >important Greek goddesses. And I've studied under other very important
Greek
> >goddesses and gods, too.
>
> Be specific are you asserting here that you are Venus or ...............
Sheridan, it is clear that you fail to understand the complexity of the issue
of Greek goddesshood. You are trying to pigeonhole me into a specific aspect
of goddesshood without looking at the larger picture and the larger issues.
I am clearly a Greek goddess for my ancestors were all Greek godesses.
>
> > will counter sue. That cruise ship couldn't possibly be a real descendent
> >of a Cherokee princess! Not even that world-famous cherokee princess could
> >birth a boat!
>
> Well Sondra let me know when you join Charlie Hill on tour :)
>
Actually, I have considered doing my own tour. The Cherokee Princess
Enterprise (tm) has been working up a possible speaking schedule for me at a
very reasonable prize, so everyone can afford it: $5000 an hour plus all
expenses paid. I could give AIMFl a special discount, of course, if you are
interested in having me come to St. Petersburg, and speak to the Indians
there.
Sondra
http://www.jaguarsystems.com/sondra
Aimfl
>sip...@aol.com (Sipish)
>the feds are starting to recgonize
>folks who can claim direct descendency no matter what there blood degree
True, the problem comes in as what is valid verification. A bible cover has
been utilized by LMCT folks even though such has no legal validity. Another
problem is that in the southeast the people's that existed here, still maintain
Nations-albeit in OK so does some hillbilly claiming to be a Creek with a
handwritten bible cover have equal standing to Creek Nation and the Muscogee
elders? Thats whats starting to happen and thats wrong.
>Now >these folks have no connection to our culture or ways for all their lives
>then >all the sudden jump out of the bushes claiming indian ancestry. Now
there
>being >heard and are actually in posistions to shape Ca Indian Policy, even to
the
>extent of changing the wording of NAGPRA to allow these folks who claim their
>people hid out in the woods to participate in matters they have no right to.
I entirely agree with you here.. Repatriation is an extremely sensitive issue
and one which is very contentious. The wanabee crowd can only serve the
interests of the dominant society in creating confusion.
>not my point, my point being that remains be ruturned to people who can PROVE
>direct ancestry
The problem again is that-in most cases, legitimate IRA and/or traditional
governments still exist and they, and only they, should deal with the issues of
repatriation. The spiritual issues are complex and should be handled by
legitimate spiritual leaders within the Nation involved.
Sipish
Sheridan,
Sure, I understand your point :>The problem again is that-in most cases,
legitimate IRA and/or traditional
>governments still exist and they, and only they, should deal with the issues
>of
>repatriation. The spiritual issues are complex and should be handled by
>legitimate spiritual leaders within the Nation involved.
Most cases, do apply. But not all. What happens when the spiritual leader of a
Nation does something so bad he's sent away for life. What happens when the
tribal leaders become greedy or morally bankrupt?
What happens when the rez tells the most likely, you can have the bones of your
ancestor back but were keeping the grave goods. How would that make you feel
Sheridan. I can tell you it hurts. thats like saying hey you can have granny
back and bury her but were keeping her wedding ring.
Those are not cool ideas, and that I will not stand for.
Sipish
Aimfl
> sip...@aol.com (Sipish) wrote:
>Most cases, do apply. But not all. What happens when the spiritual leader of
>a>Nation does something so bad he's sent away for life.
Does the nation not replace the individual? Does this nation only have one?
>What happens when the>tribal leaders become greedy or morally bankrupt?>What
happens when the rez tells the most likely, you can have the bones
of>your>ancestor back but were keeping the grave goods
Take them to tribal court.
>Those are not cool ideas, and that I will not stand for.
What you have presented is a highly hypothetical situation and I can't
therefore comment on its coolness because beliefs vary from Nation to Nation on
burials and even repatriation. However I can say I'd rather see your grandma
reburied by her own people than utilized as validation for a group of people
who are claiming to be 1/4096ths and thereby have a right. The people know the
proper ceremonies , if the hypothetical you described occured-which involves a
host of unrelated but interconnected actions, then take the tribe to tribal
court-by tro if such actions violate your Nations traditional beliefs.
Sheridan
Aimfl
>: son...@jaguarsystems.com wrote:
>Sheridan, it is clear that you fail to understand the complexity of the issue
>of Greek goddesshood. You are trying to pigeonhole me into a specific aspect
>of goddesshood without looking at the larger picture and the larger issues.
Pigeons, no I prefer dogs : ). But seriously folks, if you are claiming to be a
Greek goddess is that not a specific thing?
>I am clearly a Greek goddess for my ancestors were all Greek godesss
so your a fullblooded Greek goddess?
>Actually, I have considered doing my own tour. The Cherokee Princess
>Enterprise (tm) has been working up a possible speaking schedule for me at a
>very reasonable prize, so everyone can afford it: $5000 an hour plus all
>expenses paid. I could give AIMFl a special discount, of course, if you are
>interested in having me come
ROTFL. Good one