Talk:Cherokee: Difference between revisions

Indigenous peoples of North America Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Oklahoma Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archived Talk Page 1

I know nothing much about Cherokee, but I'm puzzled by this uninterrupted series of edits (the overwhelming majority of which don't have edit summaries) by a single user (User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey). There are some additions that seem plausible, some deletion of material that looks odd, and deletion of a lot of material that looks plausible and worthwhile. Maybe Jeffrey could explain these. -- Hoary 07:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The only people who have the right to call themselves Cherokee's are those who are members of the Federally recognized Cherokee tribes. The Wannabees (People who claim Cherokee heritage but cannot prove it) are not Cherokees. Cherokee is not a racial distinction, but a political one, as it always has been. The nature of our relationship with the Federal government is political and not racial in nature. So whether or not someone can claim they are of Cherokee ancestry or not does not qualify them for inclusion in an article about us or our culture. All of these phony groups do not even know our culture, language, and beliefs, just new age huey, and none of them can prove they are Cherokee's, or they would be tribal members of one of the three tribes. That is the first criteria for removal of bogus content about us. False and inaccurate information about what is Cherokee should and must be removed. The next issue has to do with people quoting wild facts without citable sources. If the materials gets tagged, and someone has not corrected it, it should be removed. So that's what has happened with the content. Most of it is false and misleading. There are too many plastic cherokee shamans out there with websites and internet scams using Wikipedia as a link farm to generate hits. These materials fail Wikipedia's standards, and ours as well. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This explanation is near totally POV. How can being Cherokee be determined by the USA? The people were Cherokee before the USA existed, and will be Cherokee after the USA is relegated to the annals of history. The claim that being Indian/Cherokee is controlled, defined by USA treaty recognition is repulsive to any self-respecting indigenous people. It is self serving for members of a group with such USA treaty recognition to declare themselves the only legitimate Cherokee group. This exclusionary, narrow definition of what defines a Cherokee is unfounded. Certainly some Cherokee people are so recognized by the USA, but that political identity and relationship does not remove from others their genetic or racial Cherokee connection. One may choose to, perhaps accurately, identify oneself as being a Treaty Cherokee to distinguish oneself from those without such Treaty recognition, but you cannot take from others their history and ancestry. Such exclusionary views do not seem to be grounded in traditional Cherokee culture, but rather in the relatively 'new age' philosophy of Cherokee Nationalists who are prone to experiment with the European models of controlling governments. The circular reasoning that "none of them can prove they are Cherokee's, or they would be tribal members of one of the three tribes" is not dispositive. Since by the proffered POV definition of what a 'Cherokee' is that one must be a member of a USA recognized tribe to be a "Cherokee", it goes without saying that these 'would be tribal members of one of the three tribes'. That was pre-determined by creating the definition. And that is why such a definition is wrong. There are Cherokee people, Cherokee descendants who do not have any USA treaty recognition. And since 1871 when the USA congress declared that henceforth no Indian peoples would be recognized as nations for treaty making purposes, that is not likely to change. Defining 'Cherokee' to include those of Cherokee bloodlines is more appropriate, but one must also acknowledge the traditional and historical right of the people to adopt 'outsiders', who are also accepted internally as being 'Cherokee'. Restrictively defining tribal membership either in terms of bloodlines or external political recognition is not what traditional Cherokee were about. Those are European constructs.Qureus1 11:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should leave the United States if they want to support or create fake Cherokee Groups. The US Constitution only vests this power within the Congress of the United States. Section 1, Chapter 8, "Congress shall have the power to regulate trade between the states, with foreign nations, and with the Indian Tribes." Only congress has the power to say which tribes it recognizes and which is does not. Impersonating an Indian under Federal Law in order to gain benefits intended for us is a lot like impersonating a police officer -- its a crime. The real test of whether someone is Cherokee or not is whether they were raised in our culture and speak our language. None of these fake groups can say this or prove it. People of claimed Cherokee ancestry are not Cherokee's unless tribal members. This is our position and always has been. Its also the position of the US Government. Under our Cherokee Tribal Laws of the time in the 1800's, if someone renounced their citizenship in the 1800s to be assimilated, and did not choose to endure the same hardships our people did, we renounced them and all of their descendants under our law -- these so called descendants of the Cherokee come back and claim to be Cherokee but ignore our ancient laws? No. They left our culture long ago and are no longer one of us. This is like a black man raised in the US claiming his Kaswahili when he knows nothing of the culture nor speaks the language (nor can prove he is on paper). The people's kids and grandkids don't get to come back and claim they are one of us. That's why the Cherokee Nation uses the Dawes Rolls -- only those Cherokee who stood with our people and culture and endured the hardships of Cherokee life in the 1900s are eligible for membership.

All of the rest of these people are Wannabees and frauds. It does not matter if someone has Cherokee ancestry -- this is not what makes you Cherokee -- its whether you are part of the Cherokee Culture. That being said, I have no objection to articles being created with proper titles about these groups. i.e. Southern Cherokee Nation (Wannabees) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, There is no such thing as a "State recognized Tribe". States have no authority to recognize Indian Tribes, period. As was previously stated, this power rests solely with the Congress of the United States, and many of these so-called State Tribes are balanced on knifes edge in terms of the law. Many of them are getting prosecuted for illegal casinos (river boat gambling in case of the Southern Cherokee Nation), and their whole "thrust" to call themselves Cherokee is based on greed and misuse of Native Legislation to make money for themselves. Do not believe a word of this huey from these fake groups, and don't let them misuse Wikipedia. If they are not Federally recognized, they are not Cherokee, or any other Indian Tribe. Taking any other position exposes Wikipedia to scrutiny and harms its credibility with the Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and the US Government. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using a title like "Southern Cherokee Nation (Wannabees)" is ridiculous. You removed specific links where they stated they were Cherokees and their tribe was not recognized. Using a term like "non-Federally recognized" is acceptable. Your term is YOUR POV and not acceptable. --Kebron 17:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then if they are not recognized, they belong in their own article, and not one about us. The Cherokee Nation is aggressive in going after these groups, and constantly does, along with the Federal Government. Wikipedia is not about civil disobediance. It also must be accurate. They shoud write their own article. They are not Cherokee's as far as we are concerned. Sounds like I need to propose a policy guideline that bars these fake tribes from inclusion in articles about the real Indian Tribes, to avoid damaging Wikipedia's credibility. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And some people disagree with the so called federal recognition procedure. You cannot unilaterally decide that their claims are invalid. --Kebron 18:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone disagrees with the law does not mean they can break it. What if someone claimed to be an ancient Aztec and wanted to practice the Aztec religion and cut out living human hearts. Should this be allowed? What about religious freedom? Should not they be allowed to kidnap beautiful virgins and cut out their hearts on a slab of stone in order to protect their rights of religious freedom? Or do we have laws that say torture and murder are illegal? Federal Law says they are not indians. That is the end of the debate. Federal Law also prescibes criminal penalties for someone to attempt to obtain Federal Funds or Services under the guise they are an Indian when they are not. Should we support this by placing false information into Wikipedia? I do not think we should. The law is the law, and whether you agree with it or not, it should be observed. For no other reason than to protect the credibility and quality of Wikipedia. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they are not federally recognized, does not mean their claims are not valid. As this one article explains, http://www.sacredland.org/endangered_sites_pages/supporting/Wintu_AP_05-04.html

"The Winnemem Wintu say they have always been recognized by the government, and their lack of that status now is simply because they were left off a list by mistake.

"It was a clerical error," said Franco, Sisk-Franco's husband."

Comparing clerical errors to your example of Aztec religion is just ludicrous. Being federally recognized is not the end all of being Cherokee. --Kebron 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only we or the Federal Government can decide who is or is not Cherokee, not you, and not these other groups. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you can decide who you want in your group, you can't erase what is the truth. You may try, but the genetic evidence is there. Relir 06:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And absolutely no errors can occur? From either the Nation or the Federal government? Poppycock ! --Kebron 19:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't even read the whole page and I'm ticked off. Well, I'll tell ya, Mr. Merkey, that in my family, we CAN prove our Heritage, and we are extremely proud of our heritage, yet we CHOOSE to not be recognized by the US Federal Government. Not everyone who refuses to allow the US Government to DICTATE their heritage is a "wannabe". Some of us just don't need what we consider to be a government foreign to our own to tell us that we need THEIR confirmation about who we are. I'm very upset with your superior attitude which, in my opinion, plays right into the attitude of the government who took over our people and our people's lands. To me, a "wannabe" is someone with the same attitude as the oppressive foreign government. I am ashamed that you are one of us.

"WE renounced them and all their descendants"

What do you mean WE?? Were you there? Were you one of the people who made that decision? Were you even born yet? Do you speak for the group? NOOOOOOO. You do not. But, you do like to take credit for other people's decisions. Everything I've read here tells me that you are narcissitic and suffer from a seriously inflated ego. You do NOT speak for all of us.

Oh, you mean only those who weren't intelligent enough to escape their captors deserve to be called Cherokee? You know as well as I do, that weakness is highly frowned upon. A real warrior would have fought the oppressors and protected his family from them. Hunting and protection were the man's only jobs. All else was matriarchal. Those men who did not protect their families are the last people that I want to be associated with. They were punks.

I seriously doubt that you are one of us. We are largely offended by the white man's term "Indian". We are the Aniyunwiya, "the principal people," or the Tsalagi.

I'd like to see YOU try to decide who is and who is NOT Cherokee . . .Oh wait, that's exactly what's going on here!!! You're like the schoolyard Ninny who jumps up and down yelling, the teacher said so, the teacher said so. Are you not man enough to determine truth on your own, so that you must continually throw out the decisions that OTHER people have made, as though they were your own?? What are you, three?

Indeed. I assume that Mr Merkey is aware that by his neo-stalinist purging of what he considers to be "wannabee" or "fake" indian groups, and his near-instantaneous deletion of any comments not in complete agreement with his POV, he is removing valuable and, more to the point, interesting, content from Wikipedia. I have no disagreement with his flagging of non-federally recognised groups and bands as such, but I take exception at the manner in which it is done, the tone of Template:NorthAmNativeUnverified is aggressive and unpleasant, and his proposed policy positively reeks of racism. The instant deletion of articles covering tribes or bands that, according to this proposed policy (created and edited, one will note, by one user only, and rejected by the community) is wholly unacceptable. Please, someone with some punch, revert the worst of his edits. Teseaside 15:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many celebrities of Cherokee extraction (Della Reese, one parent was full blooded Cherokee; Salli Richardson; Jimi Hendrix one parent was full blooded Cherokee; Vanessa L. Williams...), but until proof is provided they can not be listed without being deleted. Specifically if the person is of African descent. The list was too loosely defined for the taste of many, but it reflected the actual truth about the Cherokee bloodline and genetic DNA - it is dispersed in various percentages throughout the social races, as well as within the Nation. The criteria for membership into the nation in regards to being of Cherokee extraction has differed for those of Caucasian, Asian or other Amerindian ancestry compared to those of African ancestry. If a person of Caucasian, Asian or other Amerindian ancestry is 1/4 Cherokee with a registered fore parent, they are most likely to be included in the nation as a member, whereas a person of African ancestry of 1/4 Cherokee extraction also having a registered fore mother or father is not. An African descended person of 1/2 Cherokee extraction would equally as likely to be denied recognition.

Afro descendants of Cherokee (and other Amerindian extractions) may not be, or their recent ancestors may not have been, accepted members of the Cherokee or other Amerindian nations due to racist laws and innuendo, however there is a definite/scientifically undeniable genetic tie to the Cherokee and/or other nations.

The Cherokee Nation has evolved to become as racist as the colonialist, imperialists and explorers who slaughtered and raped their fore mothers and fathers, and those of other First Nations in the Western Hemisphere (along with First Nations of all hemispheres). Their practices of member recognition/denial is highly despicable and can be paralleled to how Afro descendants have been denied their right to identify/claim their Caucasian ancestry for many centuries. The practice further contributes to the social barriers in modern America. It's ashame that the sons and daughters of the Nations have to be divided by the politics and social races introduced by the very people who contributed to the genocide of the original people of America - the people we descended from.

Luckily, modern technology now offers different types of genetic DNA/anthropological testing where people descended from the Cherokee (and any other ethnic/racial group) by whatever extraction can further validate their ancestry. However, in many cases it's not that hard to prove, taking examination of inherited blended aesthetic traits of individuals and their recent ancestors.

Yes, I whole heartedly agree with the idea of preserving First Nation bloodlines and identity, it's something long deserved as the ancestors where imposed upon. However, this can be done without alienating the sons and daughters of your own blood. Despite the varied percentages we are genetically connected. Perhaps they wouldn't be entitled to some of the federal incentives or perks of full blooded or officially listed members, but at least recognized them. Perhaps have a faction of Cherokee who are not politically affiliated. Native African countries, tribes and ethnic groups started doing this as African First Nations were imposed upon, too. Many of those adopted back into willing African communities/tribes are indeed of mixed ancestry, their genetic DNA is not 100% of their Native, Native fore parents. Many of them have Native American, Caucasian, and other bloodlines, and despite their varied aesthetic variation the native African people have embraced them. And this doesn't make them politically tied to any community or group there.

The gesture acknowledges the struggle and misfortunate fate of many of our ancestors (regardless of their race/ethnicity) and the injustices many of them had to go through.

Relir 08:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon concensus and discussion with the Wikiproject Indigineous Peoples of North America leaders, addition of any such materials will be immediately removed from this article as failing WP:V and the proposed policy WP:NATIVE because those persons who claim Cherokee ancestry are not members of Federally recognized tribes cannot be verified as being Cherokees. If you have sources that indicate these groups may have a historical context as affiliated with Cherokee culture, a separate article can be created if the materials meet verifiaiblity requirements, but "wannabee" groups do not belong in the same articles as actual verified Indian Tribes. Claims of Cherokee ancestry are not verifiable for any group or individual unless these individuals are members of a Federally recognized Cherokee Nation, Band, or Tribe. This article is about Cherokee Indians, not Cherokee wannabbees, or Cherokee plastic shamans. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOU cannot determine if a person's claims are valid or not. YOU claim YOU are Cherokee. Yet what is your proof? Are you prepared to cite YOUR proof for a Wikipedia article. If I claim I have a Micmaq ancestry should I be need to prove it to you to add it to an article or to my Userpage? Why should anyone else? --Kebron 02:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NATIVE is a proposed policy, not actual Wikipedia policy. There is nowhere near any consensus on the proposed policy talk page, at the very least. Just because the "leaders" of the Indigenous peoples of North America wikiproject support the proposal doesn't mean it automatically carries -- Wikiproject leaders are just editors, like you and I, and have no special powers to override the normal WP consensus process, especially when proposed policy is involved. (BTW, where exactly are these leaders agreeing with you? Not on the WP:IPNA talk page, it seems. A pointer or two would be appreciated.) As a proposed policy, it has no force. Furthermore, Jeffrey, you're the one who has proposed it, wrote it, etc. Writing a proposed policy to support your argument isn't playing fair.
Also, I fail to see where including information about Cherokees (who happen to not be members of a federally recognized Cherokee tribe) in a Wikipedia article is breaking US federal law. Verifiability (in the Wikipedia sense) of Cherokee heritage and ancestry cannot be limited to US federal rules and regulations. One more thing -- how exactly would the presence or absence of US federal recognition affect Canadian First Nations? -- ArglebargleIV 03:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all this rant, the inclusion of tribes not registered with the BIA makes them unverifiable under WP:V. Fake Cherokee tribe removed. If and when they become Federally recognized, they can be included. In the mean time they can stop using Wikipedia to spread misinformation. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link... a book... anything to PROVE your allegations? --Kebron 01:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be misguided for me to get involved in this debate, but as far as I can tell the Southern Cherokee, which are not federally recognized (only three recognized Cherokee groups- Eastern Band, United Keetoowah Band, and Cherokee Nation Oklahoma), do not claim to be federally recognized. Their website includes claims to Kentucky state recognition and there is also an online petition for federal recognition. Here is the claim to Kentucky recognition [1]. So I must point out that Mr. Merkey's point about their lack of federal recognition is entirely correct, but also that there are no false claims on their website about federal recognition that I can see. As to who deserves to be called Cherokee, I will not dare to venture an opinion. But perhaps further discussion is needed. Is there a reason we couldn't include a fair, brief section on major petitioners seeking recognition under the name Cherokee? The Southern Cherokee and others are both large and have attempted petitions. This controversy could be reviewed, NPOV, in this article or a related one. TriNotch 03:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet here is the site that claims they are recognized. http://www.southern-cherokee.com/html/historicaloverview.htm

Who is right? I am uncertain. It needs to be reviewed. I agree. BUT Mr Merkey cannot just remove anything he wants at a whim. --Kebron 14:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Here's a good staring point of reference Relir 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, any group of people who can prove their heritage using one of the accepted rolls, who has an acceptable degree of Cherokee blood, can form a group or band. For example, we may not all live on reservations, yet we would like to have interaction with other Cherokee. Therefore, we might have a band in ?Arkansas? , or, I dunno, ?Florida?, where we can meet with other Cherokee, practice our faith, learn of our heritage, be around others who are largely like us, etc. So long as that group is comprised only of persons with the accepted "degree of Indian blood", Cherokee Blood, to be specific, then that group should be fine. It's not like they are trying to start a whole new tribe, they're just a portion of a larger tribe. This is always the way that it was. Different bands roamed around, but they were all part of the larger whole--the Cherokee.

Wrong. Under Title 25, application for Federal Recognition requires proof of a continuous perpetuation of culture, such as language and traditional burial grounds, historical proof, etc. In other words, you actually have to BE an indian group. Sorry, this statement is bunk. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're ignoring the fact that these people ARE tribal members--this is simply a sub-group of the larger Nation. It gives the FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBAL MEMBERS a place to meet which is close to home. Therefore, yes, they have a right to be known. And the reason that I put these links on this page, is not because I care to argue with you or anyone else about something as inconsequential as federal recognition--it's because I want people to be informed, which is the whole idea behind an encylopedia. I want them to know where they can find a local meeting place if they so choose to.AEHarris

You cannot be a tribal member of more than one tribe at a time -- Federal Law and BIA regulations. In other words, for someone to do what you are proposing, they would have to leave one tribe to create another. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, you should look up Circular logic. You cannot resolve a controversy about the legitimacy or otherwise of Federal recognition, by citing the rules of federal recognition. The point is the federal recognition is not the be all and end all of who gets to call themselves "Cherokee". Clearly, there are false, newagey type tribes. Equally clearly, there are non-Federally recognised tribes who are most definitely Cherokee. They should be included.

Mr. Merkey, if you wish to have the final say about what to delete, which you seem to wish for, then perhaps you should seek employment with Wikipedia. Until then, we have as much right to our opinions as you do. As others have done, I too, am asking you not to make any more deletions until this discussion is concluded.AEHarris

False and unverifiabile information is subject to removal. Discussion is not required if the information is clearly false. The Southern Cherokee Nation is no such thing, and is not recognized. In fact, the materials posted on their website is blatantly false based on other reliable sources. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear links to various recognitions of the Southern Cherokee have been posted in this discussion. It is patently obvious that this is not "false and unverifiabile" (sic) information. I suggest that the revert war is over for this tribe, and that they be included post haste. Lets move on to the other tribes that were controversially deleted, and the cause of the revert war. Who is next on the list? What links do we have supporting each side of the argument?

Do you have a link, a source, something that can be verified by any independent source that can confirm or deny any tribe's inclusion as a so called Verifiable/Unverifiable Group --Kebron 12:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Court order stating that the Echota Cherokee are a Tribe under their corporation. http://www.echotacherokeetribe.homestead.com/Echota_Ruling-Cullman.pdf --Aeharris 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)AEHarris[reply]

Website showing that the Confederated Western Cherokee operate under the 1839 Cherokee Constitution of the Cherokee Nation.--Aeharris 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)AEHarris[reply]

With most of these groups, a person has to prove not only that they are Federally Recognized Tribal Members, but also that their ancestor had a connection with this particularion band.--Aeharris 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)AEHarris[reply]

Website showing that the Georgia Tribe is state recognized. It is important to note here, that no Judge in his/her right mind would make a ruling suggesting that a Tribe be state recognized if there were a law which stated that a Tribe must be Federally Recognized in order to exsist. All Judges know that Federal law supercedes State law, and they would not go against that. http://www.georgiatribeofeasterncherokee.com/history.htm --Aeharris 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)AEHarris[reply]

From the BIA website: "If proof of membership in a particular tribe is desired, inquiry should be made to that particular tribe. The Bureau of Indian Affairs publishes a list of federally recognized Indian tribes in the Federal Register. The latest publication was on October 23, 1997, (60 C.F.R. 55270), which can be obtained from most libraries, or accessed on the Web at www.doi.gov/bia/tribes/entry.html, under the heading "Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, 10/23/97"." NOTE: This list has not been updated in TEN years. --Aeharris 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)AEHarris[reply]

There is no such thing as a State recognized tribe. See WP:NATIVE. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to communicate that information to Kentucky and other states that have recognized certain tribes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_State_Recognized_American_Indian_Tribal_Entities --Kebron 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a little section on Indian identity (below), concentrating on Cherokee. Its based mostly on one book, which biases it, but I think that it is a start (I left out other reviews of the book, all of which that I've seen are positive, and are written by people of various backgrounds). My idea is that with this we can agree to talk about various ways of identifying oneself as Cherokee, and the article can show that different concepts exist.Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution does not define Indian, and there are upwards of 32 separate definitions used in federal legislation as of a 1978 congressional survey (Garroutte 16). Cherokee/Choktaw author Louis Owens tells us that he is not a real Indian because he's not enrolled. "Because growing up in different times, I naively thought that Indian was something we were, not something we did or had or were required to prove on demand. Listening to my mother's stories about Oklahoma, about brutally hard lives and dreams that cut across the fabric of every experience, I thought I was Indian." Opening with this quote, Eva Marie Garroutte discusses the issue of Cherokee identity in her book, 'Real Indians: identity and the survival of Native America. Garroutte categorizes four facets of Indian identity: law, biology, culture, and self-identification. By law, Cherokee is defined by being direct blood descendant of an Dawes Act enrollee. This is in some ways a broader biological acceptance than some tribes, about two thirds of which require a certain "blood quantum" degree of tribal ancestry, with a quarter being the most common minimum (Garroutte 16). The role of blood quanta in the Dawes Act itself seems to be in question (Russell 148)^[1]. As of Febrary 1996, only 37,420 (21 percent of total tribal enrollment of 175,326) had at least one quarter Cherokee blood or more (Sturm 240).

On the other hand, Garroutte discusses the importance of self-identification and cultural tradition on ones identity as an Indian. Although there are various ways in which the nearly 300,000 individuals identified as Cherokee come to be that way, Cherokee demographer Russel Thornton reminds us that "common to all Cherokees is an identity as Cherokee...[all Cherokees mentioned in the 1980 census] identified themselves as Cherokee. So they are." (Garroutte 83) The Deer Clan, whose umbrella organization the Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy was denied federal recognition, is an example of a Indian group embracing the idea of self-identification as a primal indicator of Indian identity, even more than cultural identity (Garroutte 83). Garroutte identifies some practical problems with self-identification as a policy, quoting the struggles of Indian service providers who deal with many people who had ancestors, some steps removed, who were "Cherokee Princesses." She quotes the social worker, "Hell, if all that was real, there are more Cherokees in the world than there are Chinese." The use of self identification in US censuses has changed since 2000 as now people are allowed to check multiple categories. Initially it was thought that this would prevent Jim Crow type customs which kept the offspring of Freedmen "black" (Russell 149)

From here we would go on along the lines of:

The Cherokee Nation is the federally recognized group which derives its membership based on the Dawes Act. The modern Cherokee Nation in recent times has excelled and has experienced.... [Continue with what's there]

The Cherokee Nation itself boasts a membership of about 100,000, with less than 20,000 in the Eastern Band and the United Keetoowah Band. There are some 200,000 people who self identify as Cherokee but are not enrolled in these federally recognized bands (Thornton 2). Some of these are enrolled in bands that are recognized by individual states, but not by the federal government, while others are those who self identify for other reasons. There are currently about 30 Cherokee groups seeking recognition as Cherokee nations or tribes from the Bureau of Indian Affairs [3]. However, the last group to gain recognition as a Cherokee tribe was the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees more than 50 years ago, and there is little evidence that other groups will be recognized soon. In fact, some groups calling themselves Cherokee do not seek recognition, but rather seek to give people with some vague knowledge of Cherokee ancestry a way to learn about and share in that heritage. The afore mentioned Deer Clan and its umbrella organization the Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy are an example of this. While some of these groups do try to push their members to show some form of proof of Cherokee heritage, even if it is not in a form accepted by any of the three official groups, others do not.

This situation has caused a great deal of stress and pain for the Cherokee Nation. Groups claiming to be Cherokee often attempt to solicit money, open Native themed stores, or even run casinos. It is estimated that more than 200 such groups falsly and fraudulantly claim such ties. A group calling themselves the Southern Cherokee Nation was able to claim gaming rights in Oklahoma and South Carolina and was nearly able to get a casino before they were stopped (Pierpoint 2000). Although many groups calling themselves Cherokee are harmless and seek education and personal fulfillment, groups such as the Southern Cherokee Nation lead many registered Cherokee deeply distrustful of those who claim to be Cherokee without belonging to the official groups.

Garroutte, Eva Marie. Real Indians: identity and the survival of Native America. University of California Press, 2003

Pierpoint, Mary. Unrecognized Cherokee claims cause problems for nation. Indian Country Today. August 16, 2000 (Accessed May 16, 2007) [4]

Russell, Steve. "Review of Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America" PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review. May 2004, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 147-153

Thornton, Russell. The Cherokees: A Population History. University of Nebraska Pres, 1992

Sturm, Circe. Blood Politics, Racial Classification, and Cherokee National Identity: The Trials and Tribulations of the Cherokee Freedmen. American Indian Quarterly, WInter/Spring 1998, Vol 22. No 1&2 pgs 230-258

This is a lot, so I'm putting it here first. I haven't put in much specific information related to the Dawes Act or the view of this stuff by Smith, some part of this stuff could go into the identity section to make it more rounded. Go ahead and edit it here, and if it is ok (I'm looking for agreement from Kebron and JVM), maybe adding this can help us compromise and find consensus.Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like an interesting compromise proposal, which has the virtues of not suppressing verifiable information, presenting the evidence, and allowing the reader to make up his or her own mind. -- ArglebargleIV 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see, I have a feeling that a discussion of identity may be seen as too much for an article about a group of people, but in this case it seems appropriate. By the way, I just made a major addition to Cherokee Freedmen Controversy based on Sturm's article. Hopefully JVM can add in Smith's (et al.) perspective if he sees fit. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the Freedmen article. BTW, Kebron is a troll from SCOX here to disrupt and revert my edits. To be honest, he needs to go away and leave the legitimate editors to work on this article in peace. As far a non-recognized Cherokee groups being in this article, the answer is a firm no from me. They are not indians and these groups use our identity to try to make a buck. We are tired of their antics. If and when they are recognized as Cherokees, they can be included. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I give up. Look at Merkey's record... he is a liar. I give up... y'all deal with this idiot. --Kebron 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without making a pronouncement on the compromise you're suggesting since I have not taken part in the discussion myself, I wholeheartedly endorse Jeffrey's position regarding unverifiable, non-recognized minor groups being listed. Although not to the same extension, I have experienced the same antics from pseudo-Comanche groups myself. I praise the initiative to discuss and analyze all the evidence brought here and reach an acceptable solution for this article. Regards, Phaedriel - 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]