Paul
Reading what you write makes me wonder about how you see things.
I see where your main point seems to be to repeatedly try to point out that there was some individuals who had Cherokee ancestry who left descendents who aren't being allowed to enroll in any of the 3 federally recognized Cherokee Nations. This is a straw man argument . We all agree these individuals do exist. That isn't the point of contention.
What does seem to be the point of contention is if many generations have passed since these people were recognized as a visible community having a collective identity as Cherokee, should these individuals should be able to get together with other descendents and declare themselves a tribe?
1.Do you see any difference between a few individuals who have some Native descent, who live in a community with a few other families ( possibly cousins ) who also have some Native descent , but these families have been fully assimilated into the non native community for generations, and a tribe which has maintained it's collective cultural and political identity as visibly and demonstrably distinct from the surrounding non native population?
2. If a family has intermarried and has passed as non native for more than two generations , in other words, has been fully assimilated into the surrounding non native community, and these families can prove they have some Cherokee ancestry , do you believe these families should be able to get together with other people of some distant Cherokee ancestry and declare themselves a sovriegn Nation?
3. If you believe Cherokee descendents should under some conditions be able to form a new tribe, or reform an old one, and they shouldn't other times , could you explain where you personally would draw the line ?
Well first of all,, I get damned confused as to how I see things,,,
To try (poorly) to address what seems to be the point of contention:
<if many generations have passed since these people were recognized as a visible community having a collective identity as Cherokee...>
I question just who needed to recognize them. (others or themselves).
If it is themselves, and they just didn't talk about it from fear. Then
Perhaps when the times changed to where it is safe then it maybe OK. If they always existed as a Tribe no matter how large or small (but still didn't talk about it to outsiders) then of course they should have the right to reform. And /or change their name. After all the CNO changed their name from "The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma" to "The Cherokee Nation" not to long ago.
Your point #1:
Yes of course I see that. I haven't
decided (read that as,, been convinced) just which of these 2 choices the Echota's fall under.
Your point #2:
I think you are talking about forming a NEW Tribe.
If this is the case then my answer is NO, They should not.
But I also question the "Paper Indians" in the CNO or any other fed Tribe. I understand that some say that they gave up their rights when they didn't move to I.T. but why doesn't that still apply to those who live "At Large" now?
Your point #3:
Where I personally would draw the line ?
That's a tough one,
Jokingly I would have to say if they only have a P.O. Box for tribal land...
then not just NO but, Hell NO...
I think if the Tribe in question has good documentation of their long standing history (ie: the Lumbee) Then of course. In this discussion of the Echotas I was hoping that they were one such Tribe. At this point I'm not sure. I do see both sides of the discussion.
On the one hand it looks like they fall under the points you made under point #2.
On the other hand if their documentation were to show that they have been a Tribe for,, oh let's just say the past 200 years (as is the requirement for documentation in Alabama) And they choose to change their name (to The Echota Tribe of Ala.) and come out into the public eye after only 2 or 3 generations of hiding out now that it is safe, Then perhaps this is OK.
Again I would point out that they (the Echotas) have already done this many years ago when they got State recognition some 40ish years ago. So are we questioning their their legitimacy, linage, their sovereignty or the State of Alabama's wisdom?
I personally think that a State government knows better than I do. I also think that if a State (especially one that has laws as tough as Ala.) recognizes a Tribe, that the Fed's should also recognize them, (benefits is a whole other discussion). Along with the Fed. recognized Tribes, as a kinship perhaps. sorta like the relationship between the Eastern Band and the CNO. I don't think that this Echota Tribe wants anything from the CNO, but it would be nice if they could call each other "Brother". But this is just MY
thoughts, I speak for no one except myself.
