Enrollment v non-enrollmet

[Back again - FACTS ANYONE]

This is an earnest attempt to better understand the posters here. I am placing it in the "Research Needed" category to begin with, although "Etcetera" works well too. The reason I am starting it here is that it appears, and I may be wrong, that many posters are using one's enrollment status as the sole or major determinant for whether or not an individual is legitimately Native and whether or not they are frauds. That is contrary to the forum's stated purpose, so I am curious about this forum's current readership and if this forum's statements posted elsewhere, are perhaps in need of revision based on the current membership. I also just want to learn as much as I can from people who speak for themselves.

Could we start some dialogue about that? I want to recommend the written works by Dr. B. Mann - who has done the most extensive research to date about the actual origins of enrollment. Before I offer some of her research here, I think it's only fair to hear from those of you who have been posters here a lot longer than I have.

With Respect, Thank you.

[Defend the Sacred]

If you had bothered to listen, to read the threads in the forum before just blustering in, making demands and shouting at people, you'd see this has already been discussed at length, and recently. I doubt people really want to repeat themselves, especially to someone who can't be bothered to read what's already been said, extensively, on the topic.

And anyway, you're banned. You can now have the opportunity to listen without the need to shout at us.

[NanticokePiney]

  LOL! 

[earthw7]

Way to funny

[frederica]

Absolutely Amazing

[zoi lightfoot]

now there was I thinking i had jumped right to the comedy pages.LMAO

[Superdog]

This is an earnest attempt to better understand the posters here. I am placing it in the "Research Needed" category to begin with, although "Etcetera" works well too. The reason I am starting it here is that it appears, and I may be wrong, that many posters are using one's enrollment status as the sole or major determinant for whether or not an individual is legitimately Native and whether or not they are frauds. That is contrary to the forum's stated purpose, so I am curious about this forum's current readership and if this forum's statements posted elsewhere, are perhaps in need of revision based on the current membership. I also just want to learn as much as I can from people who speak for themselves.

Could we start some dialogue about that? I want to recommend the written works by Dr. B. Mann - who has done the most extensive research to date about the actual origins of enrollment. Before I offer some of her research here, I think it's only fair to hear from those of you who have been posters here a lot longer than I have.

With Respect, Thank you.

Enrollment is not the issue.  If that's your focus then you're missing the point entirely and this thread isn't really worthy of any kind of discussion.  The real meat of the issue is if a person claiming to represent a community is actually a part of that community or is even known in the community they claim to represent. 

If you put a stamp next to your name in order to sell personal knowledge and that stamp alludes to a Native American identity as a selling point.  That person better be able to back that up and be able to uphold the standards of the community they claim to represent (whether it's a specific tribe, a confederation of tribes or the Native American community as a whole).  Enrollment and blood quantum aren't figured into that equation whatsoever. 

If an individual isn't part of a community but is attempting to represent their Native ancestry...they're doing nothing more than representing their family name and there should be a level of honesty about that.  Ancestry is simply not a legitimate argument for claiming to hold the secrets of an entire people or group of people.   In that situation, you have someone who can only legitimately claim to hold the secrets of their family....nothing more.