Woodland Indians Forum

You are not logged in.

Announcement

#26 Oct-26-2008 08:27:am

sschkaak
Moderator
Registered: Sep-17-2007
Posts: 4299
Website

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

lenape writes:

"...I do know that the "no bloods" are accepted as what they are and they do not overstep their "place"..."

Nice (I guess) that they're allowed to participlate, but this is something like being an African-American Mormon.  In other words, "what they are" (and always will be) are non-Indians participating in Indian culture.

Offline

 

#27 Oct-26-2008 09:32:am

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

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

sschkaak wrote:

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!

What is one of the defining characteristics of a "tribe"? Continuous community

A group of people, no matter what their blood, cannot meet as adults and call themselves a tribe. There has been no continuous community. They have no history together. This would apply to FBI as well as *An ironic acronym used in another forum*.

Offline

 

#28 Oct-26-2008 09:48:am

sschkaak
Moderator
Registered: Sep-17-2007
Posts: 4299
Website

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

bls926 wrote:

sschkaak wrote:

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!

What is one of the defining characteristics of a "tribe"? Continuous community

A group of people, no matter what their blood, cannot meet as adults and call themselves a tribe. There has been no continuous community. They have no history together. This would apply to FBI as well as *An ironic acronym used in another forum*.

Bonnie:

It's absolutely fine for you (or anyone else) to accept and adopt the official BIA definition of what constitutes an Indian tribe (e.g., "continuous community") as your own, if you find yourself in agreement with it.  I don't.  Hence, the discussion.   smile

Offline

 

#29 Oct-26-2008 12:05:pm

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

Re: Cherokee statement resolution ???

sschkaak wrote:

lenape writes:

"...I do know that the "no bloods" are accepted as what they are and they do not overstep their "place"..."

Nice (I guess) that they're allowed to participlate, but this is something like being an African-American Mormon.  In other words, "what they are" (and always will be) are non-Indians participating in Indian culture.

I agree with you, there is no "infusion" ceremony, LOL!!  *I*, myself, and apparently others, don't see anything wrong with this.  This doesn't give these "non indians" any rights to anything, and they are only accepted by those communities that CHOOSE to accept them.  What *I* disagree with is when these folks take it on themselves to become something they are not!  As for "non-natives" participating in Native culture, and not the "Powwow, or paid event" culture, but community ceremonies, tribal ceremonies, ect..., this is part of "most" tribes culture, be it "adoption" or "Making Relations" or what ever else it is called.

  I believe that Indians can determine what makes a tribe or community, not the BIA!

  These are just my views, am sure many agree and many disagree that is one of the great things about being human, LOL

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson