Woodland Indians Forum

You are not logged in.

Announcement

#1 Oct-24-2008 03:32:pm

littleoldman
Member
Registered: Jul-21-2007
Posts: 133

Cherokee statement resolution ???

I have been very busy with business of late so I am ignorant of something.  There has been a lot of discussion about a resolution by the CNO and the EB about calling one's self  Cherokee if one was not a member of either CNO or the EB.  Will someone who is more knowledgeable please explain what is this all about.  Money, Culture, Heritage, Political Power, or what?  Thanks for your enlightening words.  "LOM"

Offline

 

#2 Oct-24-2008 03:33:pm

lenape
Member
Registered: Feb-11-2008
Posts: 1779

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

Here is the link to the site and the "statement":
http://taskforce.cherokee.org/Home/tabi … fault.aspx

Offline

 

#3 Oct-25-2008 05:42:am

littleoldman
Member
Registered: Jul-21-2007
Posts: 133

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

Thanks I had no idea that there were so many "Cherokee" "Tribes " out there.  If I understand correctly this is about some of them trying to get or receiving monies  which by right should be going to Fed Tribes.  It is also easy to see how some PODIAS (people of distant Indian descent) who want to honor their Cherokee  ancestors could very easily be led astray especially with regards to correct cultural matters, heritage. etc.  I have run into this ignorance many times  at powwows.  Be back later "LOM"

Offline

 

#4 Oct-25-2008 09:56:am

sschkaak
Moderator
Registered: Sep-17-2007
Posts: 4272
Website

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

*An ironic acronym used in another forum* - "people of distant Indian ancestry"  -  That's about 80% of the CNO, isn't it?   neutral

Offline

 

#5 Oct-25-2008 10:53:am

lenape
Member
Registered: Feb-11-2008
Posts: 1779

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

"*An ironic acronym used in another forum* - "people of distant Indian ancestry""

is this considered a "bad thing"?  Just wondering, if this is a "touchy" subject just forget I asked....LOL

Offline

 

#6 Oct-25-2008 11:01:am

tree hugger
Site Admin
Registered: May-12-2006
Posts: 11031

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

is this considered a "bad thing"?  Just wondering, if this is a "touchy" subject just forget I asked....LOL

Uh .. it isn't here.


*An ironic acronym used in another forum* - "people of distant Indian ancestry"  -  That's about 80% of the CNO, isn't it?

pishi!

Offline

 

#7 Oct-25-2008 11:08:am

sschkaak
Moderator
Registered: Sep-17-2007
Posts: 4272
Website

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

It's a word they like to throw around over at the NAFPS site.  It's their way of separating such people from the "REAL" Indians.  (A "REAL" Indian is, you know, like someone with a BQ of 1/256, with an ancestor on the Dawes Roll.  LOL!)

Offline

 

#8 Oct-25-2008 11:39:am

bls926
Administrator
From: Texas
Registered: Oct-21-2006
Posts: 12082

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

lenape wrote:

"*An ironic acronym used in another forum* - "people of distant Indian ancestry""

is this considered a "bad thing"?  Just wondering, if this is a "touchy" subject just forget I asked....LOL

I think it's a problem or a "bad thing" when someone who was not raised in the culture suddenly becomes an expert in all things Native, or Cherokee in this instance. Using "we", "our people", and other similar phrases when talking about the past and present situation in Indian Country. Don't cry about things you haven't experienced. Overnighters have a tendency to do this. Someone can empathize with the problems and struggles Indians have endured without acting as though they or their parents and grandparents experienced it directly. Just like the LNP, so many of these created Cherokee tribes have experienced adult-onset Indianness. I'm not saying you can't learn your history or culture as an adult. I believe you can reconnect; but you need to learn from a true Elder of your Nation. You cannot create your own tribe.

Offline

 

#9 Oct-25-2008 01:14:pm

sschkaak
Moderator
Registered: Sep-17-2007
Posts: 4272
Website

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

bls writes:



I think it's a problem or a "bad thing" when someone who was not raised in the culture suddenly becomes an expert in all things Native, or Cherokee in this instance.

I agree, but this applies to FBI's, as well as *An ironic acronym used in another forum*'s (enrolled or not).



Using "we", "our people", and other similar phrases when talking about the past and present situation in Indian Country.

I suppose this would be "situational."  For instance, an enrolled *An ironic acronym used in another forum* could say, "we," when talking about the political situation in the tribe; but, could not say, "we," when talking about the racial discrimination faced by Indians.  Can Christian Indians say, "we," when talking about the religious practices of traditionalists?



Don't cry about things you haven't experienced. Overnighters have a tendency to do this. Someone can empathize with the problems and struggles Indians have endured without acting as though they or their parents and grandparents experienced it directly.

Is there anybody now living who had a grandparent on the Trail of Tears?  Does a *An ironic acronym used in another forum*, with an ancestor who did walk the Trail of Tears, have more of a right to "cry about it" than a FBI who didn't have an ancestor who experienced it? 



Just like the LNP, so many of these created Cherokee tribes have experienced adult-onset Indianness. I'm not saying you can't learn your history or culture as an adult. I believe you can reconnect; but you need to learn from a true Elder of your Nation.

We've been over this ground before.  You believe "learning from a true Elder" means sitting at the feet of a living elder and hearing his or her words, or observing his or her actions, directly; while I think you can "learn from a true Elder" through his or her recorded words and actions (in books, articles, tapes, etc.), or from someone (enrolled or not; Indian or not), who learned what he or she knows from "a true Elder."   



You cannot create your own tribe.

Why not?  To me, it depends on whether or not the tribal members are Indians.  If they are--no problem.  If they aren't--problem!

Offline

 

#10 Oct-25-2008 01:50:pm

littleoldman
Member
Registered: Jul-21-2007
Posts: 133

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

Interesting comments.  I have known and still do know many people with varying degrees of BQ.  Some have Fed cards, some have State cards, and some have no cards at all.  I have observed some who are not carded who have more cultural knowledge than some who are carded.  When I look at someone I tend to look deeply into both what they say and how they say it.  I am just as troubled with a State tribal member as well as a CNO member who does not take the time or effort to correctly research and learn their real cultural heritage.  I also  get disgusted with those "CARDED"   "INDIANS"  who look down their noses at others.  If I am correct our ancestors adopted many not of their race as well as intermarried with them.  It looks to me that if the CNO and EB were about increasing their power within this country they would be more inclusive rather than exclusive.  What say you?   "LOM"

Offline

 

#11 Oct-25-2008 02:04:pm

sschkaak
Moderator
Registered: Sep-17-2007
Posts: 4272
Website

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

LOM:

I agreed with all you said, except for the last statement.  I believe lineage-based enrollment requirements are the single greatest reason we have all the Wannabes we do in this country.  And, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is the biggest such nation (though there are others).  As long as enrollment requirements are not racial (based on high American Indian BQ), Wannabes and *An ironic acronym used in another forum*'s will proliferate.  After all, why should someone who is 1/32 American Indian be denied status, if others, with less Indian BQ, are acknowledged?  Denying the former, while recognizing the latter, is an untenable argument, as I see it.

Last edited by sschkaak (Oct-25-2008 02:04:pm)

Offline

 

#12 Oct-25-2008 04:24:pm

littleoldman
Member
Registered: Jul-21-2007
Posts: 133

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

Sschkaak:  I don't think that I disagree with you at all.  I see you argument and it has validity.  Think along with me for a minute.  The CNO says that you must have a direct ancestor on the Dawes roll in order to be an enrolled member.  At least I believe that I am correct on this.  It there fore yields the conclusion that the tribe is slated for an eventual extinction due to blood dilution or there is going to be a whole lot of inbreeding.  Neither is a optimum result for the future.  I therefore see some sort of inclusion or accommodation with these non-Federal "STATE" "TRIBES" "HERIITAGE CLUBS"  ECT. might be looked at for the future survival of the CNO and  EB.  Please don't get me wrong I am not arguing for either I just want the culture as well as the heritage to be preserved.  I have no vote in this matter only that I care.  Any ideas on how to fix the problem?   "LOM"

Offline

 

#13 Oct-25-2008 05:16:pm

tree hugger
Site Admin
Registered: May-12-2006
Posts: 11031

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

I hope you don't mind me butting in here.

LOM,

The CNO says that you must have a direct ancestor on the Dawes roll in order to be an enrolled member.  At least I believe that I am correct on this.  It there fore yields the conclusion that the tribe is slated for an eventual extinction due to blood dilution or there is going to be a whole lot of inbreeding.

I'm confused on why the CNO would be headed for extinction. There will always be a direct descendant of the Dawes Roll, no matter what their BQ is.

Sschkaak,

You cannot create your own tribe.

Why not?  To me, it depends on whether or not the tribal members are Indians.  If they are--no problem.  If they aren't--problem!

While that makes sense to me at some level, who decides whether they are Indian or not?  Isn't that a fine line if it's just self-determination, I'm assuming that there would have to be some type of guideline. I guess I'm saying how would that be possible and who decides?

Offline

 

#14 Oct-25-2008 05:20:pm

sschkaak
Moderator
Registered: Sep-17-2007
Posts: 4272
Website

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

LOM:

As I said, I see federally-recognized tribes with high BQ membership requirements as the only effective solution to Wannabeism.   If your idea would increase the average Indian BQ of the Cherokee tribes, then it would help with this.  If not, then what's the point?

Offline

 

#15 Oct-25-2008 05:30:pm

sschkaak
Moderator
Registered: Sep-17-2007
Posts: 4272
Website

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

TH:

Genealogy and/or DNA.

Offline

 

#16 Oct-25-2008 05:36:pm

tree hugger
Site Admin
Registered: May-12-2006
Posts: 11031

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

Thanks. Stepping out now lol.

Offline

 

#17 Oct-25-2008 07:10:pm

NanticokePiney
Member
From: Hopewell Twp., New Jersey
Registered: Jul-10-2007
Posts: 4214

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

sschkaak wrote:

*An ironic acronym used in another forum* - "people of distant Indian ancestry"  -  That's about 80% of the CNO, isn't it?   neutral

lol  Too true!
I Guess I should feel lucky that the Nanticokes and Sicconese/Assateaque Moors inbred to the point  where I can count my chromosomes on my fingers. yikes


I don't have anger issues...just violent reactions to B.S.
---------------------------------------------------
      Warning:  Some Profanity
This might cause you to experience reason

Offline

 

#18 Oct-25-2008 07:40:pm

sschkaak
Moderator
Registered: Sep-17-2007
Posts: 4272
Website

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

You've still got all 46 chromosomes.  Some of them just come from the same place!  tongue  (Actually, if anyone is afraid to find some inbreeding, I wouldn't recommend taking up genealogy as a hobby.  big_smile )

Offline

 

#19 Oct-25-2008 07:41:pm

littleoldman
Member
Registered: Jul-21-2007
Posts: 133

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

Sschkaak;  As I understand it the CNO do not use BQ but descent from the Dawes Roll.  I believe you to be correct in that those Tribes that use BQ are more true in their membership.  It seems to me then that it will be easier to hold them more "PURE"??  As time goes on the CNO will become more and more diluted.  This then begs the question how much Indian "Cherokee"  do they remain.  Brings up another question.  What then makes an Indian an Indian BQ or culture.  "see Treehugger's comment"  Was someone in the Federal Gov. that long seeing when they made the original determination?  Can we say FUBAR?  At any rate they have a royal problem that will require some long thinking.  "LOM"

Offline

 

#20 Oct-25-2008 08:07:pm

sschkaak
Moderator
Registered: Sep-17-2007
Posts: 4272
Website

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

LOM:

BQ is the answer.  If it is culture which determines who is an American Indian, then there is no need for any race-based membership requirements (BQ or lineage-only).  Just one opinion.

Offline

 

#21 Oct-25-2008 08:13:pm

littleoldman
Member
Registered: Jul-21-2007
Posts: 133

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

got to go for awhile grandson on yhe way over.  "LOM"

Offline

 

#22 Oct-25-2008 08:22:pm

NanticokePiney
Member
From: Hopewell Twp., New Jersey
Registered: Jul-10-2007
Posts: 4214

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

sschkaak wrote:

You've still got all 46 chromosomes.  Some of them just come from the same place!  tongue  (Actually, if anyone is afraid to find some inbreeding, I wouldn't recommend taking up genealogy as a hobby.  big_smile )

Some of those old money Down Jersey Quakers are more cross-eyed than the Nanticoke-Lenape. That makes me a "double-inbred". lol


I don't have anger issues...just violent reactions to B.S.
---------------------------------------------------
      Warning:  Some Profanity
This might cause you to experience reason

Offline

 

#23 Oct-25-2008 08:27:pm

sschkaak
Moderator
Registered: Sep-17-2007
Posts: 4272
Website

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

Hey!  Gotta keep the money in the family!   big_smile

Offline

 

#24 Oct-25-2008 09:50:pm

NanticokePiney
Member
From: Hopewell Twp., New Jersey
Registered: Jul-10-2007
Posts: 4214

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

sschkaak wrote:

Hey!  Gotta keep the money in the family!   big_smile

That does work. big_smile


I don't have anger issues...just violent reactions to B.S.
---------------------------------------------------
      Warning:  Some Profanity
This might cause you to experience reason

Offline

 

#25 Oct-25-2008 10:03:pm

lenape
Member
Registered: Feb-11-2008
Posts: 1779

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

Thanks everyone for the input.  I had a friend who "passed" a few years back who called himself this, he was a mixed breed Cherokee from western Oklahoma and I never thought much about the word, and he didn't imply it as a "bad" (for lack of better word) thing, so when it came up I thought I would ask, again thank you.

  I have mixed opinions on who is indian, I know many "full-bloods" that know nothing of their culture and many "mixed breed" and "no bloods" (no indian blood, that is, LOL) that speak the language of the people who claim them, I have been out to some of the grounds in OK where there are "whites" accepted and participating, and been to others where I was the palest thing there, LOL.  However I do know that the "no bloods" are accepted as what they are and they do not overstep their "place", unlike many in the "makeshift" groups.

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson