Woodland Indians Forum

You are not logged in.

Announcement

  • Index
  •  » General
  •  » David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

#1 Jun-28-2009 11:51:am

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

David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Definition of Wannabee



First:

A researcher ie genealogist is a scientist who will announce a hypothesis. The genealogist will say, I think I may have Native American ancestry based upon the oral traditions of my family and I will research, document and publish what I find no matter where it leads or what it says.

The wannabe will announce he has Native American ancestry based upon family oral tradition. He may or may not do research, but no matter what evidence there may be to the contrary or no evidence at all, he will hold fast to his proclamation because it has become part and parcel of his identity.

I, as an authentic Indian, have been required to prove a specific degree of blood, while the wannabe is free to claim any blood quantum he wants. I, an authentic Indian, have proven my racial and legal connections to the Cherokee tribe of Indians. The wannabe is free to claim one or many tribes while proving nothing. I often wonder how someone could be 1/8 Cherokee, which means a great grandparent was a full blood, and there be absolutely no records of that fact, while an authentic Cherokee might be 1/512 and there is literally hundreds of linear feet of documents proving it. The 1/512 person is stuck with whatever the documentation says. The wannabe is free to ebb and flow his blood claims based upon convenience, audience and whim.

And finally I wish to point out that it is an insult to authentic Cherokees, whose ancestors suffered to be included upon tribal rolls, endured hardships including the Trail of Tears, loss of land, language and culture, children forced into boarding schools, when someone with no proof of same, comes forward to lay claim to our history, culture, language, religion and identity. Definately a slap in the face to our ancestors.

Wannabes claim that their ancestors "hid out" from the census takers. I say no one was even looking for their ancestors because they were not Indians. Wannabes will say "my ancestors were left off the Dawes Rolls." But then I will wonder what about the 29 other rolls that predate Dawes?

Wannabes will say "my ancestors jumped off the Trail of Tears." Which leads me to ask, "Why then, are your ancestors not listed on the Trail of Tears Roll?" Did your ancestors have an erasor and hitchhike to Washington, DC to cover their tracks and erase their own records? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot there was a huge conspiracy to erase Indian records, LOL. But then what about the missionary records, which authentic Cherokees' ancestors appear in great numbers? Why are your ancestors NO WHERE to be found at any time in Cherokee history?

If you are a serious researcher of your family history and not a wannabe, you will state the hypothesis and then do research. When you are finished you will announce your findings. That will either be what the records say or what they do not say. If you are a wannabe, you will proclaim yourself to be an Indian no matter what the records say. And a final note, because of the racial hatred against blacks our nation has suffered, there is plenty of reason for your ancestors to have lied about their race.

Second:

Like I said, if its just around the dinner table, inside the family, well and good. And I'm sure its probably true the vast majority of wannabes do that and go no further. But for those who go beyond that province, I must stand up and speak against them. The joining of hands and creating of wannabe groups is extremely dangerous to the real tribes. The demand for recognition, services and sovereignty all create a dangerous situation for the real tribes. Anyone who claims to speak on behalf of the Cherokee people without the consent of the Cherokee people is an oppressor of my people. And I do consider some without Cherokee blood to be Cherokees. Likewise I consider some with blood not to be Cherokees. I include among the former many freedmen, adopted whites, Shawnees and Delawares, along with a few Creeks and Natchez Indians adopted into the tribe. Included among the latter are people descended from Cherokees who abandoned their Cherokee nationality (however that may have happened) and just became Americans. You see, being Cherokee isn't about "having" or "not having" blood. Its about getting that nod from the Cherokee people. By the same token, having some blood, if its not recognized by the Cherokee people, means nothing (except perhaps around the dinner table). Those who can prove nothing, but still make the claim are wannabes. Those that have blood but do not meet our citizenship requirements are the outtalucks. And please stop confusing tribal enrollment/registration with the federal certification known as the CDIB. All the CDIB does is "certify" as to a specific degree of blood. By itself, it is not proof of tribal membership. They are completely different animals. For the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma any degree of blood will do. For the Eastern Cherokees a minimum degree of 1/16 is required. And for the Keetoowah Cherokees a degree of 1/4 is required. The Freedmen who got registered with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma in 2006 to 2007 were never asked to obtain a CDIB card, and yet they proved themselves to be Cherokees (not Indians, but Cherokees nonetheless) and were registered.

I know it may seem like I beat a dead horse regarding the wannabe issue. But it also seems to be that the number of people recently claiming to be Indian/Cherokee just never stops. I feel like I'm in that movie "Night of the Living Dead," with long dead Cherokee zombies crawling out of the grave. I keep fighting them off, but more just keep popping up.

David Cornsilk


http://www.cornsilks.com/Dwords-wannabee.html

Offline

 

#2 Jun-28-2009 12:09:pm

Chevy
Member
Registered: Aug-01-2007
Posts: 1577

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Good article. & then there's ppl like my Aunt, who does have the paper trail (She's also a dau. of the Republic of Tx, & has most of her paper trail East also, re D.A.R..), but it never occurred to her to enroll. Enrolled or not doesn't change who her ancestor was.big_smile

Offline

 

#3 Jan-29-2010 07:38:pm

Gummy Bear
Member
Registered: Jan-28-2010
Posts: 61

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Chevy wrote:

Good article. & then there's ppl like my Aunt, who does have the paper trail (She's also a dau. of the Republic of Tx, & has most of her paper trail East also, re D.A.R..), but it never occurred to her to enroll. Enrolled or not doesn't change who her ancestor was.big_smile

Correct, It would change her citizenship.

Offline

 

#4 Jan-29-2010 09:11:pm

Chevy
Member
Registered: Aug-01-2007
Posts: 1577

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Correct. She never thought about enrolling, so she isn't a Cherokee citizen, but her ancestor is still her ancestor. smile The ppl who were her ancestor's family still are. smile Her history is still her history. big_smile

Offline

 

#5 Jan-30-2010 01:48:pm

Gummy Bear
Member
Registered: Jan-28-2010
Posts: 61

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

What I have pointed out here is the difference between Ancestry and Citizenship. It can lead to a very polarized discussion.
Many from the 3 fed Tribes seem to think that they are the only one to have the right to call themselves Cherokee (because of Citizenship), unless of course one puts some disclaimer behind it. Such as Cherokee descendant or un-enrolled Cherokee or something like that.  They make up derogatory names like fake, Wannabee, outa-lucker, pre-tindians,  And the list of bad names goes on and on but you know what I am talking about. This is in my mind a bad thing for them to do. (or allow to happen) I don't like it one bit. All of the Cherokee put together (enrolled or not) are just a very small population in this country. Things are hard enough without dividing ourselves into haves and have nots. If the CNO wants to use the Dawes rolls or the EB want to use the Baker rolls that's great and their decision, support it. But they must understand that those that they exclude are also Cherokee and have every right to call themselves such, and they shouldn't get all bent out of shape if they decide to ban together either. Many have done so and have gained State recognition, This is not an  easy thing to do. I feel that if the big 3 doesn't want some people in their Tribe then they shouldn't get wound up if some other Tribe does want them.

Offline

 

#6 Jan-30-2010 02:45:pm

Chevy
Member
Registered: Aug-01-2007
Posts: 1577

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Yes. Ancestry. Family. Citizenship. It's a mess, but it's all there is.
Take the Delaware. In Kansas, they were Delaware. Then they went to I.T., and went in with the Cherokee, and became citizens of the Cherokee Nation and "Cherokee Delaware". The Delaware and Cherokee have been feuding since ? Then the Delaware were Federally recognized as Delaware. Then the Cherokee brought suit, as I understand it, because of Federal Money and land issues, altho the Delaware bought their land from the Cherokee when the Delaware came to I.T., sooo then the Delaware were no longer Fed recognized as Delaware, and had to come to some agreement with the Cherokee, whose thumb they are again, under. Okay, so they were still Delaware, but they were not Fed. recognized as squat. So they came to some bitter pill agreement with the Cherokee, and wala, they are now, again, Fed. recognized as Delaware, but still under the Cherokee thumb. Why? Because money talks and bs walks, that's why. sadhmmmadroll

& then I post with someone who is enrolled, but one of their family members isn't, just because the family member thinks it's bs. big_smile

But, I do think there is a difference bet. those who could enroll, and just don't, and ppl, who have no paper trail, although, ppl with no paper trail, may have more bq than some enrolled, esp. Cherokee! lol

Offline

 

#7 Jan-30-2010 02:48:pm

Chevy
Member
Registered: Aug-01-2007
Posts: 1577

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

But they must understand that those that they exclude are also Cherokee and have every right to call themselves such, and they shouldn't get all bent out of shape if they decide to ban together either. Many have done so and have gained State recognition, This is not an  easy thing to do. I feel that if the big 3 doesn't want some people in their Tribe then they shouldn't get wound up if some other Tribe does want them.

Well, Gummy Bear, I agree with you on that! smile

Offline

 

#8 Jan-30-2010 03:54:pm

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

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Gummy Bear wrote:

What I have pointed out here is the difference between Ancestry and Citizenship. It can lead to a very polarized discussion.
Many from the 3 fed Tribes seem to think that they are the only one to have the right to call themselves Cherokee (because of Citizenship), unless of course one puts some disclaimer behind it. Such as Cherokee descendant or un-enrolled Cherokee or something like that.  They make up derogatory names like fake, Wannabee, outa-lucker, pre-tindians,  And the list of bad names goes on and on but you know what I am talking about. This is in my mind a bad thing for them to do. (or allow to happen) I don't like it one bit. All of the Cherokee put together (enrolled or not) are just a very small population in this country. Things are hard enough without dividing ourselves into haves and have nots. If the CNO wants to use the Dawes rolls or the EB want to use the Baker rolls that's great and their decision, support it. But they must understand that those that they exclude are also Cherokee and have every right to call themselves such, and they shouldn't get all bent out of shape if they decide to ban together either. Many have done so and have gained State recognition, This is not an  easy thing to do. I feel that if the big 3 doesn't want some people in their Tribe then they shouldn't get wound up if some other Tribe does want them.

I'm a bit confused right now. Are you saying that just anyone could call themselves a Cherokee descendant or unenrolled and should be able to "ban" together? How is anyone supposed to know if these claims are real or not? Someone could have had family stories, or maybe watched a movie or tv show and all of a sudden become a Cherokee descendant. Wouldn't there have to be some kind of guideline? hmm

Offline

 

#9 Jan-30-2010 03:59:pm

Gummy Bear
Member
Registered: Jan-28-2010
Posts: 61

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Thanks Chevy, I don't find to many people that agree with me on this subject to often.
Personally I would like to see all Cherokee together as one Tribe but it looks like that will never happen. 

All of this is nothing more than the same thing you see in the Christian Churches.
Each one thinks they are the only one true Church.

Offline

 

#10 Jan-30-2010 04:02:pm

Gummy Bear
Member
Registered: Jan-28-2010
Posts: 61

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

tree hugger wrote:

Gummy Bear wrote:

What I have pointed out here is the difference between Ancestry and Citizenship. It can lead to a very polarized discussion.
Many from the 3 fed Tribes seem to think that they are the only one to have the right to call themselves Cherokee (because of Citizenship), unless of course one puts some disclaimer behind it. Such as Cherokee descendant or un-enrolled Cherokee or something like that.  They make up derogatory names like fake, Wannabee, outa-lucker, pre-tindians,  And the list of bad names goes on and on but you know what I am talking about. This is in my mind a bad thing for them to do. (or allow to happen) I don't like it one bit. All of the Cherokee put together (enrolled or not) are just a very small population in this country. Things are hard enough without dividing ourselves into haves and have nots. If the CNO wants to use the Dawes rolls or the EB want to use the Baker rolls that's great and their decision, support it. But they must understand that those that they exclude are also Cherokee and have every right to call themselves such, and they shouldn't get all bent out of shape if they decide to ban together either. Many have done so and have gained State recognition, This is not an  easy thing to do. I feel that if the big 3 doesn't want some people in their Tribe then they shouldn't get wound up if some other Tribe does want them.

I'm a bit confused right now. Are you saying that just anyone could call themselves a Cherokee descendant or unenrolled and should be able to "ban" together? How is anyone supposed to know if these claims are real or not? Someone could have had family stories, or maybe watched a movie or tv show and all of a sudden become a Cherokee descendant. Wouldn't there have to be some kind of guideline? hmm

Sure there should be guidelines and Documentation. I just don't think that a given Roll is the only way to document that one is NDN.

Offline

 

#11 Jan-30-2010 04:03:pm

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

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Ah okay!

Offline

 

#12 Jan-30-2010 04:28:pm

Gummy Bear
Member
Registered: Jan-28-2010
Posts: 61

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

I also don't think that there should be any "New" tribes allowed.
I.E. internet tribes, PO Box tribes or "James Earl Ray" die here tribes. The cherokee golf and country club tribes and so on.

Offline

 

#13 Jan-30-2010 04:37:pm

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

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Well then what do you think should happen? I'm curious what kind of guidelines as well. I mean if no one has a paper trail, then how on earth would they be able to prove it. Sad, I know..for a few people. There are just too many out there claiming to be, this and that, and causing more damage than good. hmm

Offline

 

#14 Jan-30-2010 05:31:pm

Gummy Bear
Member
Registered: Jan-28-2010
Posts: 61

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

I sure don't know how to handle all of this, that's for sure...


As it is now each of the big 3 have their ways, That's Cool.
And the State Tribes have theirs too, Most of them will allow other documents to be used. That's Cool too.
( I don't like the idea of membership with no paper trail).

I guess my point is that I see nothing wrong with Tribes that use other documentation. Rather than just one roll.

Offline

 

#15 Jan-31-2010 09:20:am

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

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Gummy Bear wrote:

I sure don't know how to handle all of this, that's for sure...


As it is now each of the big 3 have their ways, That's Cool.
And the State Tribes have theirs too, Most of them will allow other documents to be used. That's Cool too.
( I don't like the idea of membership with no paper trail).

I guess my point is that I see nothing wrong with Tribes that use other documentation. Rather than just one roll.

Read this yesterday and didn't comment. I just wasn't up to another discussion with you about this. Decided I better say something before y'all think I agree with this nonsense.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record . . . The historic Cherokee Nation has been split into three Nations. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the United Keetoowah Band in Eastern Oklahoma. The thousands of Cherokee tribes scattered all over the world are not Nations or Tribes. They are heritage societies at best, pretendians at worst. This includes the numerous State recognized Cherokee tribes. Most of these don't require any substantial proof of Cherokee ancestry. Even when the proof is there, it's so far-removed from the historic Cherokee Nation that it doesn't amount to much more than descendancy. If your closest relative with direct ties to the Nation died before you were born, you are a descendant. Nothing more and nothing less. There's nothing wrong with being a Cherokee descendant. A person just shouldn't make more out of it than it is. You can't form your own tribe, just because you aren't entitled to citizenship in one of the legitimate Cherokee Nations. This is disrespectful to all Cherokee, including your ancestors.

Offline

 

#16 Jan-31-2010 10:03:am

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

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Bonnie writes:

"If your closest relative with direct ties to the Nation died before you were born, you are a descendant. Nothing more and nothing less."

I'm sure you didn't mean this--unless, as opinion.  Your father could have died before you were born!  And, of course, if your great-great-great-grandmother died in 1899, but was listed on the Dawes Roll, you're eligible for CNO citizenship, even if all your other ancestors, in that lineage, married non-Indians, never claimed their citizenship rights, and never had anything to do with the tribe or its culture. 

Isn't it ironic that the roll used to determine CNO citizenship, since 1970, is the one roll the very purpose of which was to terminate the Cherokee Nation!

Offline

 

#17 Jan-31-2010 10:04:am

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

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Good post BLS, I agree with you.  We have been over, and seen over and over again, the real problems that these makeshift "tribes", "nations", "bands", ETC cause.  I have no problem with native folks seeking out the history, culture, bloodline, or what ever else, the problem is these groups try to present themselves as a legitimate "tribe" or "nation", most times with their hand out looking for funds due to those communities that have maintained their existence as a community, 99% percent of these hobbiest groups distort and bastardize the culture they claim to be from, then try to "teach" the public, LOL kind of like the blind leading the blind.

Offline

 

#18 Jan-31-2010 11:52:am

Gummy Bear
Member
Registered: Jan-28-2010
Posts: 61

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

I find it very , very strange that any of the 3 Fed Tribe members will point out the "Citizenship" thingy when including someone no matter how far removed from the Tribe's culture and with the same breath bring up ancestry or enrollment practices when condemning a State Tribe.  Plain and simple the State Tribes are there, They are legal, and they won't go away.
Israel isn't going to go away either, in spite of what the Palestinians think.

The CNO will be the first to point out the Sovereignty thing to justify their decisions for how they enroll or dis-enroll people, yet think they have a say in how some other Tribe does the same thing. It would be nice, but for the most part they don't give a care what the Fed Gov or the CNO thinks about how they do things. Sure they do things differently, whether it's how they enroll or how they dress or dance,  every Tribe does, and always have done things differently. The Lumbee are a perfect example. While Fed recognition would be nice, and they have tried for many years to get it,,, they didn't go away just because the CNO put them on their list of fake tribes.

It's  Plain and simple the 3 Fed Tribes of Cherokee only have a right to say who is and who is not, within their own Tribe.


I know that all of this over zealous condemnation of other Tribes is not the intention of the Council or the Principal Chief. I have talked to them both, in person. I know this.  It seems to only exist on the internet, and is not the case in person. Why is truly unknown. I have had to prove my linage several time in the popular forums,  yet no one has ever ask me one question when I was at any function in person.

Offline

 

#19 Jan-31-2010 12:08:pm

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

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Gummy Bear wrote:

I know that all of this over zealous condemnation of other Tribes is not the intention of the Council or the Principal Chief. I have talked to them both, in person. I know this.  It seems to only exist on the internet, and is not the case in person.

Well, I do not know about this, as they have spoken out very clearly in Oklahoma and Qualla about these shake and bake groups, in person, at symposiums and functions.  I know for a fact that a person showing up in Qualla claiming to be from one of these "groups" will be shown the door.  I also know that folks from these "groups" are not welcome at ceremonial grounds in Oklahoma, not to say a few have not straggled in, but they were not accepted with open arms, nor deemed "legit".  Now, having said that, this is not to say that members of the 3 Cherokee Tribes/Nations will not accept folks from these groups, am sure they will, but this does not deem them legit either, there are elders and leaders in NC that believe if you speak the language you are "Cherokee", to a degree, and at least "culturally", this I know for a fact, not that *I* agree with this, but I am not Cherokee, so what I agree with, or don't agree with means nothing.  But to say this is only an "internet" problem is really not true, anyone who wants to see this can go down to the boundary in NC or out to OK and talk with the folks out there.  Again, I don't see any problem with "heritage groups", as long as they don't try to represent themselves as "tribes" or "nations" and step on the toes of the legitimate tribes and nations that have survived and maintained their sovereignty.

Offline

 

#20 Jan-31-2010 12:42:pm

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

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

I keep coming back to the foolproof solution to the Wannabe problem:  If you're not 1/4 American Indian BQ, then you're not an American Indian.  This would end all the B.S.

Offline

 

#21 Jan-31-2010 01:01:pm

Gummy Bear
Member
Registered: Jan-28-2010
Posts: 61

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

sschkaak wrote:

I keep coming back to the foolproof solution to the Wannabe problem:  If you're not 1/4 American Indian BQ, then you're not an American Indian.  This would end all the B.S.

And it would dis-enroll how many???

And to reply to lenape,,, I know for a fact that a person showing up in Qualla claiming to be from one of these "groups" will be shown the door.  I also know that folks from these "groups" are not welcome at ceremonial grounds in Oklahoma,


And I'm sure that door swings both ways. To say that if someone from Oklahoma were to show up in south Georgia (or where ever) would be shown the door too. Like I said they don't care who thinks they are wrong.

Offline

 

#22 Jan-31-2010 01:25:pm

Chevy
Member
Registered: Aug-01-2007
Posts: 1577

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

They are heritage societies at best, pretendians at worst.

Just because my Aunt isn't enrolled doesn't mean she isn't who she is.

My Aunt isn't a heritage society, and sure isn't a pretendian. My Aunt is who she is.
My Aunt doesn't want to form her own tribe. It never occurred to her to enroll in the Cherokee Nation, but

Well, this is what gets me, and what I don't agree with. I think if a person has a Cherokee ancestor, or Irish or whatever, they can say I'm Irish, I'm Cherokee, I'm Dutch, I'm Welsh, whatever. It doen't mean they are a citizen of Wales, or the Cherokee Nation, but by gosh, it IS what they are.

It has NOTHING to do with makeshift "tribes", "nations", "bands", ETC . I personally know people who claim Crow ancestry, Cherokee ancestry, and a woman who was adopted who IS blackfoot/feet, which ever it is, or Crow, but she is not an enrolled member because her Mother gave her up for adoption, or whatever, and she's bitter that she was abandoned by her parents! When she found out she was Crow, or Blackfoot, instead of Mexican, she said she didn't care about finding her parents.
I know a woman who has the ancestry, both parents, was born in Oklahoma, but she doesn't have a paper trail. Do I believe her? I surely do. My Momma used to say: "Poor people have poor ways." and this is true, Not everybody stayed in Oklahoma. She told me her Mother's sister, and her husband, left Oklahoma and went to California because they were afraid welfare would take their kids away.

The ppl I know don't have their hand out, and don't practice any "Cherokee" culture. So what? They are still who they are!

The CNO will be the first to point out the Sovereignty thing to justify their decisions for how they enroll or dis-enroll people, yet think they have a say in how some other Tribe does the same thing.

I totally agree with this. The Cherokee want to kick out the Freedmen, which I think is chickenshit. You know, the Cherokee can cry, cry, cry, but ALL the losers got punished by the Federal Govermant after the Civil War, not just the Cherokee. Texas certainly got punished by the Federal Government after the Civil War.

The Lumbee are a perfect example. While Fed recognition would be nice, and they have tried for many years to get it,,, they didn't go away just because the CNO put them on their list of fake tribes.

I agree with this too.

Well, I'm not talking about groups, or people who want to be apart of a group. I'm talking about individuals who say what they are, like I say I'm Irish, and if ppl don't like it, I don't care. Personally, I won't say I'm Cherokee or Delaware, I'll just say I have the ancestry, but if persons who are my friends, who have never been on the internet, and have not a clue about all the broo-ha-ha over it, and whose Mother told her when they came to Texas, and she started school in Texas, to do not say you're Indian, say you're white, wants to say she's Cherokee, as far as I'm concerned, she can, and if my other friend, who has Crow ancestry, wants to say she's Crow. that's fine with me. 

I keep coming back to the foolproof solution to the Wannabe problem: If you're not 1/4 American Indian BQ, then you're not an American Indian. This would end all the B.S.

I'm not sure this would work either, as some think a person should be more than 1/4!
AND people who think even if a person IS enrolled, if the person doesn't speak the language, practice the culture, then they aren't really!

What decides it, is funding. Land, Treaties, Money.

Because if you're half Mexican, and half white, to whites, you're a Mexican, and if you're half white, and half African American, to whites, you're African American, although they may treat you as white, depending on where you live, and who your Momma is!

Well, there, that's just my thoughts about it. for now. big_smilesmile Subject to change. lol

Offline

 

#23 Jan-31-2010 01:30:pm

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

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

sschkaak wrote:

Bonnie writes:

"If your closest relative with direct ties to the Nation died before you were born, you are a descendant. Nothing more and nothing less."

I'm sure you didn't mean this--unless, as opinion.  Your father could have died before you were born!  And, of course, if your great-great-great-grandmother died in 1899, but was listed on the Dawes Roll, you're eligible for CNO citizenship, even if all your other ancestors, in that lineage, married non-Indians, never claimed their citizenship rights, and never had anything to do with the tribe or its culture. 

Isn't it ironic that the roll used to determine CNO citizenship, since 1970, is the one roll the very purpose of which was to terminate the Cherokee Nation!

I absolutely do mean every word of this! I am sick to death of these overnighters thinking they are Indian. A bunch of people with adult-onset Cherokee. It just doesn't work that way. You can't wake up one morning and decide you're Cherokee.

If your father had direct ties to the Nation, in all likelihood so did your mother, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. You are part of a community. You are Cherokee and always have been.

This is about all those who discovered as an adult they had a Cherokee ancestor; those who think they can band together with others of similar background and form their own tribe, because they can't enroll with one of the legitimate Tribes.

Maybe I wasn't specific enough with what I said earlier, but y'all knew exactly what I meant. Example: My great-grandmother left the Nation, married a German blacksmith. My grandfather married a Scots-Irish from Virginia. Granddaddy and Grammy, with my mother and her brothers and sisters moved to southeastern Pennsylvania. No, they weren't part of a great Cherokee migration to the northeast. Although I am only three generations removed from the Nation, I am a Cherokee descendant, as well as German, Scots-Irish, English. I can't claim to be Cherokee any more than I claim to be German. I can't form a tribe down here in Houston, simply because I don't have a direct lineal ancestor on the Baker Roll or because I'm too far from Qualla.

The Dawes Roll and the CNO's citizenship requirements are their business; it's not mine nor yours, since neither of us are enrolled with the CNO. They are a sovereign nation with the right to govern themselves and to determine their citizenship as they decide.

Offline

 

#24 Jan-31-2010 01:47:pm

Gummy Bear
Member
Registered: Jan-28-2010
Posts: 61

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

bls926 wrote:

sschkaak wrote:

Bonnie writes:

"If your closest relative with direct ties to the Nation died before you were born, you are a descendant. Nothing more and nothing less."

I'm sure you didn't mean this--unless, as opinion.  Your father could have died before you were born!  And, of course, if your great-great-great-grandmother died in 1899, but was listed on the Dawes Roll, you're eligible for CNO citizenship, even if all your other ancestors, in that lineage, married non-Indians, never claimed their citizenship rights, and never had anything to do with the tribe or its culture. 

Isn't it ironic that the roll used to determine CNO citizenship, since 1970, is the one roll the very purpose of which was to terminate the Cherokee Nation!

I absolutely do mean every word of this! I am sick to death of these overnighters thinking they are Indian. A bunch of people with adult-onset Cherokee. It just doesn't work that way. You can't wake up one morning and decide you're Cherokee.

If your father had direct ties to the Nation, in all likelihood so did your mother, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. You are part of a community. You are Cherokee and always have been.

This is about all those who discovered as an adult they had a Cherokee ancestor; those who think they can band together with others of similar background and form their own tribe, because they can't enroll with one of the legitimate Tribes.

Maybe I wasn't specific enough with what I said earlier, but y'all knew exactly what I meant. Example: My great-grandmother left the Nation, married a German blacksmith. My grandfather married a Scots-Irish from Virginia. Granddaddy and Grammy, with my mother and her brothers and sisters moved to southeastern Pennsylvania. No, they weren't part of a great Cherokee migration to the northeast. Although I am only three generations removed from the Nation, I am a Cherokee descendant, as well as German, Scots-Irish, English. I can't claim to be Cherokee any more than I claim to be German. I can't form a tribe down here in Houston, simply because I don't have a direct lineal ancestor on the Baker Roll or because I'm too far from Qualla.

The Dawes Roll and the CNO's citizenship requirements are their business; it's not mine nor yours, since neither of us are enrolled with the CNO. They are a sovereign nation with the right to govern themselves and to determine their citizenship as they decide.

100% agreed: the right to govern themselves, not others.

BUT,,, the same goes both ways. A State Tribe can call themselves the same (sovereign). 
Their actions are none of the CNO's business.

Offline

 

#25 Jan-31-2010 01:53:pm

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

Re: David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Bonnie:

The federally-recognized American Indian tribes can recognize anybody they want to as tribal citizens.  But, they're NOT all American Indians.   They might be Cherokee, but they're NOT Indians. 

There is only one thing that makes somebody an Indian.  Blood.  DNA, if you will.  The people who have been cheated and killed and pushed all over this continent were NOT white people or black people with distant Indian ancestry (with the very fewest possible exceptions).  And, they were treated this way because of their race.  Of all the people massacred at Gnadenhuetten, Ohio, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WAS A CHRISTIAN.  They weren't massacred because they were Christians.  Same goes for the removal of the Cherokee, who had adopted almost all of the European lifeways--prior to removal!  So, practicing traditional culture is not a touchstone for being Indian.  Calling yourself an American Indian, when you look like my Uncle John, is complete nonsense, to me--whether or not you're enrolled somewhere.

Offline

 
  • Index
  •  » General
  •  » David Cornsilk: Definition of Wannabee

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson