Talk:Cherokee/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: There is no such thing as a State recognized tribe.  See WP:NATIVE. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  PROOF 

message: 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)
thread_title: New section?

message: 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).  The 1994 Federal Legislation AIRFA (American Indian Religious Freedom Act) defines an Indian as one who belongs to an Indian Tribe, which is a group that "is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians."  Many groups have sought recognition by the federal government as Cherokee tribes, but today there are only three groups recognized by the government.  Cherokee Nation spokesman Mike Miller has discussed that some groups, which he calls Cherokee heritage groups, are encouraged (Glenn 2006).  Others, however, are controversial for their attempts to gain economically through their claims to be Cherokee, a claim which is disputed by the three federally recognized groups, who assert themselves as the only groups having the legal right to present themselves as Cherokee Indian Tribes.  The struggle of groups to be identified as Cherokee has lasted a long time.  Novelist John Rollins Ridge led a group of delegates to Washington D.C. in the 1860s in an attempt to gain federal recognition for a "Southern Cherokee Nation" which was a faction that was opposed to the leadership of rival faction leader and Chief John Ross (Christiensen 1992).
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, membership in the Cherokee Nation is based in 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)Steve Russell refers to discussion in LaVelle, John P. 1999 The General Allotment Act "Eligibility" Hoax: Distortions of Law, Policy, and History in Derogation of Indian Tribes. Wíčazo Ša Review 14(1):251-302. which refutes writings by Ward Churchill, among others.  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).
More recently, researchers discusses the importance of self-identification and cultural tradition on ones identity as an Indian (Garroutte).  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 (not to be confused with the historic Deer Clan of traditional Cherokee society), 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).  Enrollment in the federally recognized groups is growing as self-identification grows.  Hastings Shade, the Cherokee Nation's deputy chief, talks of a Cherokee legend of a white snake that devours Indian land and people. Many generations later, a young Indian learns its ways and drives a stake through its heart.  "In the end," the legend concludes, "only Indian blood will be left, and people will be lining up to try to prove they have Indian blood" (Morello 2001).
:::The 1994 Federal Legislation AIRFA (American Indian Religious Freedom Act) does define who is or is not an Indian, and defines an Indian as, 
"(1) the term `Indian' means a member of an Indian tribe;
(2) the term `Indian tribe' means any tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or 
community of Indians, including any Alaska Native village (as defined in, or established pursuant to, the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)), which is recognized as eligible for the 
special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians;
(3) the term `Indian religion' means any religion­­
(A) which is practiced by Indians, and
(B) the origin and interpretation of which is from within a traditional Indian culture or community; and
(4) the term `State' means any State of the United States, and any political subdivision thereof.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating, diminishing, or otherwise affecting­­
(1) the inherent rights of any Indian tribe;
(2) the rights, express or implicit, of any Indian tribe which exist under treaties, Executive orders, 
and laws of the United States;
(3) the inherent right of Indians to practice their religions; and
(4) the right of Indians to practice their religions under any Federal or State law.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate. ".  ''
:::The Constitution grants the power solely to Congress to define who is or is not an Indian under Federal Law.  In AIRFA, Congress used this power.  Since it involves the commerce clause, the compelling government interest standard is invoked, and it since it involves a relationship government-to-government, all First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Ammendment Rights are preempted.  The only exception is the 13th Amendment, which does apply, since Congress specifically banned slavery or the vestiges of slavery as an element of Commerce under the Commerce Clause.  The compelling interest standard preempts all Constitutional privileges when the commerce clause is involved.  The authority to recognize Indian Tribes is contained within the Commerce Clause. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This also means that the United States, by and through the Attorney General, can and does have the constitutional power since treaties with foreign powers are involved, to preempt the first amendment rights of US citizens or enterpises within US jurisdiction.  In other words, if a website on the internet is stating a group of people are indians and one of the legitimate groups objects, they can invoke treaty powers, and preempt the first ammendment rights of this website or group to post the materials.  That is why this is such a touchy subject and we should think through these issues carefully.  I know of many cases where several Indian tribes have invoked this power as well as passed tribal legislation to correct false information on the internet and television, such as the case of Harley Reagan.  I think its ok to have a separate article to discuss these other groups, but I also feel it exposes Wikipedia's editors to undesireable scrutiny if we include them in articles about Federally recognized tribes, since most tribes have strong views about their culture being misrepresented.  Hope this helps. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So to summarize, the AIRFA defines an Indian as a member of an Indian Tribe, which is any group so recognized by the federal government.  I'm not sure if that alone is an encyclopedic statement.  Honestly, what you've presented is great, but its mostly primary sources and analysis of past events from memory.  If you have some secondary sources that can add to the section, we will be able to avoid original research type pitfalls. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The freedmen may appear in the article as they are or have been or still are Cherokee Citizens.  They are therefore classified as Cherokee Indians by the Federal Government.  These other groups cannot be verified.  Their struggle is certainly noteworthy, and warrant a separate article, but not the article about Federally recognized cherokee tribes. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cherokee identity

message: Right guys, I've just protected this article for 5 days, the edit warring that has gone on here is completely out of order. Whilst the page is protected, take time to cool down and then thoroughly discuss any future changes to the page - so when the protection expires, you can implement them in a calm, and considerate manor. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for protecting this article.  I seriously doubt there will be much discussion as the previous editors continue to place unverifiable and false information into the article.  I appreciate you taking the interest to protect the article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a problem with saying various bands are not Cherokee.  Perhaps more anthropologists should post here, but it is currently difficult to encourage other academics to take this place seriously.  Speaking correctly, Cherokee is more of an ethnicity than a tribal membership.  Mandating that an external authority, and one that has been historically involved in appalling oppression of these ethnic groups, has the final say as to who has the right to say who is and who is not part of this ethnicity is unthinkable.  I am interested as to what anthropoligical expertise you have, Jeff.  Why do you think that the entity responsible for the appalling suffering of the Trail of Tears should be the final arbitor of who is and who is not Cherokee?  This is not an opinion that will garner much respect amongst specialists in this field. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 13:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People who are not members of tribes are not Cherokee Indians and cannot prove it, and therefore fail WP:V.  Let me explain.  The government created rolls of names of american indians.  The tribes use these rolls to determine if someone is really an descedant of an Indian.  If you cannot show that you are descended from someone on these rolls, you cannot be a tribal member.  People who claim they are part indian and cannot prove it on one of these rolls 1) cannot get into the tribe and 2) cannot prove they are actually an indian.  In other words, just claiming they are because they believe it or their grandmohter said they were does not statisfy WP:V.  If they are not federally recognized or on the rolls of a federal tribe, they cannot prove they are indian and the articles should not exist here.  Got it now? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have some very strange ideas about the universal applicability and relevance of definitions under US Law. Once you understand that, you'll be making some progress. Ben-w 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That only follows if one is to accept that the only acceptable verification for Native American identity is the federal government's list.. -- ArglebargleIV 20:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I am worried by this comment of Jeff Merkey's: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACherokee&diff=131407875&oldid=131407132 "I am involved in tribal politics".
:This comment purports to violate the Wikimedia Foundation non-Discrimination Policy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still have to verify that any of these groups are actually the groups referred to in the Library of Congress.  You have to show that the people claiming to be the Southern Cherokee Nation are actually the same group.  Without rolls or Federal approval, good luck. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribal Politics 

message: That the Southern Cherokee be included in the article as a Cherokee Tribe
FOR
* SeparateReality 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I question the validity if these accounts voting since they are all most probably SCOX troll accounts or sockpuppets of blocked accounts here to disrupt Wikipedia and harrass me.  See http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/SCOX?action=q&board=SCOX for evidence. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as it may disappoint you, Mr Merkey, I am not a troll, nor am I a "sockpuppet", whatever that might be.  I came to Wikipedia to get some research info into my own cherokee lineage (which, as you may be able to guess, does not trace back to anyone on the Dawes Roll), and found you embarking on a political crusage to remove the very information that I was seeking.  Hence my registration. Teseaside 17:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For a new user, you show a surprising knowledge of editing style and familiarity with MediaWiki.  It's also a little odd for a new user to jump right into a straw poll, including following me from article to article just to disrupt.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used Wikipedia before, it's true, and I am largely familiar with the policies here.  Who hasn't, and who isn't?  Highlighting and linking and other "editing style"?  Provided by the javascript toolbar at the top of the edit box, and by judicious coopying of other edits.  Not hard, really.  Prior to this point, I have never edited content on Wikipedia, merely treating it as one of the first hits for research materials; it was your wanton destruction of content that prompted me to register.  As for "following you around to disrupt", I have only edited on this page and your personal talk page to ask a couple of questions, which you obligingly deleted as being edits by a "disruptive troll".  This can be verified by looking at Special:Contributions/Teseaside.  I don't, of course, expect my voice, as that of a largely non-contributing member, to carry much weight. Teseaside 17:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Have all the straw polls you want.  I will remove any materials from this article about the Southern Cherokee Nation as failing WP:V and if necessary, take the issue up the chain.  If I am overrulled fine.  I'll just sit and wait for one of these tribes to shut down this nonsense the Foundation level, which they will, because several of them are close to being pushed to do it.  How about we focus on quality content instead of argung about it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't it strike anyone else that this latest statement from Mr. Merkey is pushing the ragged edge of WP:THREAT? Either do it my way, or the tribes will sue. --Jerry (Talk) 17:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The Wikimedia Foundation receives a large number of complaints by telephone related to the subjects of articles, including subjects of biographies.   I also know they receive complaints and phone calls from companies and groups related to the same issues.   It's always better to reduce the volume of these calls by removing false and unverifiable information.  Regarding tribes, all one has to do is read IndianCountry or Indianz, and even Wikipedia articles like Harley Reagan to determine that some of these groups take false information placed into Wikipeida by disruptive trolls as a serious matter in order to understand the eventual outcome of some of these issues.   If anything, it is better to air the issues for discussions rather then avoid them out of fear of controversy.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:V is not subject to compromise.  They are either Cherokee Indians are not.  Unless you can show 1) They are descendants on verifiable government rolls as Indians 2) they are verifiably the same group described historically, addition of any non-Federally recognized tribe cannot be verified.  You are free to create a Southern Cherokee Nation article provided a big flashing neon tag says "not federally recognized".   Wikipedia is not a place for fake groups.  If they become recognized then certainly they deserve mention.  I mean, think about this.  The US government gives out billions of dollars to tribes.  The have 20+ criteria to determine if a group of people are really a historical tribe of Native Americans are what they use before they give federal funding.  Why should Wikipedia use a standard inferior to this one for article based on a Wikiality standard of "how you feel about ethnic issues."   As I said before, whether someone claims to be Cherokee or not has to be verified.  If they have no rolls to be traced from, you cannot prove they are, and someone's claims are subject to WP:V.   In other words, if they are not members of a Federally recognied tribe, there is no way to tie whether the current group claiming to be Cherokee's really are or not. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: :::The material in the proposed compromise section on, "Cherokee identity" and "Other Cherokee groups," is cited and satisfies the letter and spirit of WP:V, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources."  I'm beginning to feel that the denial of this constitutes original research, in that it "advances a position" and because you haven't given any citations of published sources saying that they are not Cherokee (whereas Garroutte, Pierpoint, Russell, and Thornton all write about both recognized and non-recognized peoples being Cherokee). As I said before, including this does not advance a position because none of it is uncited, and there isn't a sense (IMO) that their mention is done in a way that goes beyond what is factual.  Smmurphy(Talk) 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of fairness and curiosity, I would like to review these materials.  But as I said, a non-indian writing a book about his wikiality feelings about who is or is not Cherokee does not satisfy WP:V in my opinion.  I do not care how many books you cite written by non-indians.  You have to show these groups are Cherokees or the materials are subject to removal for failing WP:V.  Not every book is a valid reference.  At present, only members of the Federally recognized Cherokee tribes are Cherokee Indians.  I'll take this issue all the way to the ARBCOM if necessary to get some sort of policy barring these fake groups from misrepresenting Native Culture.  Too many fake wannabees and scam artists out there playing indian for a buck may require such a policy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen Russell isn't Cherokee enough to talk about what Cherokee is? And we already discussed Garroutte, who is also a registered Cherokee. I'm not sure it is necessary to look up the "status" of the others, but the credentials of each are very good (Thornton, Pierpoint (Indian Country Today), Sturm, Christenson).  Smmurphy(Talk) 20:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Post what you are proposing adding to the talk page and allow me to go through it and see if I can help with this touchy subject in finding references.  I am quite knowledgable of Native references and I might be able to work with you to craft something that will satisfy the issues without misrepresenting tribal identity. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherokee Identity Materials 

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: There's a link in this article to American Indian that needs to be converted to American Indian, so that it's not pointing at a disambiguation page. Could someone with edit priviliges please make this change? Thank you. CSWarren 17:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting link disambiguation 

message: Over the freedmen issue.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this has been ongoing, the BIA rejected it in 1999 and has notably withheld acceptance in several dealings, including after the 2003 referendum.  The basis of Smith's statement (I believe) is the 2003 JAT ruling, mention of which would be appropriate as well.  If Smith is referring to something else, let me know, otherwise here is a possible source for the JAT ruling. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We voted for this during the 2003 elections.  I have seen the letters the BIA sent, and there have been several.  The latest letter is posted somewhere at [] because someone poached it from Chad's office (or legal) and circulated it on the internet.   The last letter was pretty nasty, and said that the Freedmen Issue was not going to be tolerated.   The BIA basically stated the Freedmen WERE  Indians and they wanted them allowed to vote.  Chad has fought this to the end -- mostly due to a lot of African-Cherokee citizens who do not want the freedmen in the tribe.  A lot of other Cherokee's agree.  In our ancient culture, if the majority decided on a certain issue a certain way, the rest of us ARE REQUIRED to support the decision.  That's the case here.  The Cherokee People have spoken and that ends the matter as far as Cherokee Citizens like me are concerned.  That being said, the BIA and the Fed's have other ideas.  Marilynn Vann is certainly Cherokee based on her appearance -- she looks Cherokee and she speaks Cherokeeand she acts like a Cherokee Woman -- a born leader with a great deal of courage and resolve, but she and the other Freedmen were not listed with a degree of blood.  It's a complex issue and I have to remain neutral.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine, I was just saying that your quote seems incomplete if the case Chad is talking about isn't referenced.  By the way, please be careful putting in things you know to be true that don't have citations.  Also, some editors are not comfortable with press releases as main sources as they are examples of self-publishing with little editorial oversight, oversight which forces editors to included multiple angles on issues where relevant. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I may be too close to this event, how about you take a stab at reworking the sections I just added for a POV scrub and citation scrub.  If its cultural issues or history/language I think I can handle that.  This type of stuff really needs a third party to look it over to make certain I am being neutral.  Take s tab at it, if you feel comfortable with it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The BIA Just Disapproved the 1999 Cherokee Nation Constitution 

message: When starting to look for basic copyedits to do here, I quickly found this confusing sentence:
Several Cherokee Nations and Bands recognized by the U.S. government and representing 6 Cherokees have headquarters in Tahlequah, Oklahoma (the Cherokee Nation and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians) and at Cherokee, North Carolina (Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians).
The confusing words in particular are "representing 6 Cherokees".  I assume that isn't referring to 6 individual Cherokees?  In any case, I can't figure out what is meant.  Can someone clarify? Pfly 06:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Got it.  Left over from when I removed the fake Cherokee groups claiming to be Federally recognized Tribes. No  kidding, there were 3 of these fake groups listed at one time.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 6 Cherokees?

message: Moved discussion to talk page: User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification with Reliable Sources