I have found so many things in this thread that are totally inconsistent that would think it would give people more questions then answers.
For instance let me start with the word descendant here.
In the terms I often hear descendant used both on this site and elsewhere, it means a person who descends from a tribe but for some reason is not enrolled.
However I know a person born and raised on their rez, and who does know their culture and ways very well who is considered a "descendant" because though their own mother is enrolled, they themselves do not fit their tribes BQ enrollment requirements because they have more Mexican and blood of a few other California tribes in their ancestry then they do of their tribe. This of course is their mother's fault and not their own.
So in this regards, the word descendant is some ways a political word that really doesn't always mean if somebody is NDN or not, but rather if their tribe recognizes them. In many of these cases the community and traditional people might recognize individuals that fall under these circumstances as NDN and one of their people when their tribe does not.
In cases like this, and because of cases like this; though I do fully support tribal sovereignty I do not think the choices they make necessarily are always the best for NDN people. I also do not think that the decisions they make necessarily should be the final answer regarding if somebody is NDN or not.
Often times out here in California the decisions tribal governments make are not fully accepted by the populace. In this regards I am speaking of the hundreds upon hundreds of dis-enrollments tribal governments here make in which their own tribal members object to, and most often still regard those whom have been dis-enrolled as NDN's from their tribe. I have seen this with my own eyes.
If the word descendant is equal to the word PODIA at times in a sense that it means somebody coming from a family that has not had connection to a tribe and the NDN person they claim to be from in so many generations that they can't prove a single thing; then in that situation I would see the rationale behind that since to embrace those such people as whom they claim to be would be detrimental to the tribe and NDN people in general.
Another point to be made is that a tribe such as the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma will enroll anyone regardless of their BQ, while a tribe whom the same as them by blood such as the EBC has it's cut off at 1/16 by blood.
So in this case with the EBC, anyone whom is less then 1/16 would be a descendant regardless if they have proof or not, while the CNO will enroll anyone with a relation on the Dawes no matter how low the BQ. So in these cases the term PODIA and descendant are based on different standards in regards to people that are technically of the same people but are members of, or attempting to gain membership in two tribal governments that used to be the same people politically at one time,and always by blood and relation.
Furthermore, in both tribal governments there is no stipulation in the enrollment process that dictates one must be knowledgeable in Cherokee culture whatsoever. So a person whom is 1/512 or 1/16, and NON Cherokee in culture could enroll. In both cases, a person such as this would be deemed a PODIA on this very board and lectured for claiming to be from one of those tribes if they were not enrolled. Now if they were enrolled they would be "legally" NDN and nobody here could really say a word unless they were exploiters or saying things that were not true.
In the situation of taraverti, I personally see no harm in him acknowledging or saying he is Cherokee as long a he is recognizing and respecting the boundaries set before him based on non enrollment, and I am guessing not part of any legitimate Cherokee community. Going by the information he presented I don't feel he falls under the term PODIA, and he is only a descendant by legal terms rather then by blood terms that would also make him a PODIA, which he does not seem to be.
I think taraverti would for the moment fall under the terms I read John Cornsilk refer to as "outtalucks" because they claim to be, but for some reason is not enrolled and may not be able to be.
Now for an issue of mine I have with some on this board, which is what seems to be their inability to see the world through eyes and life experiences other then their own.
I won't mention names here, but one very prolific poster here claims to be a descendant of the EBC, but for some reason their family was not enrolled. Of course this situation and their life experiences based on this matter have given them a viewpoint that I would say is based primarily by their experiences. To be honest most of what I read them say on here passed that seems to be based on what I feel is nothing more then book knowledge of NDN's.
The issue I have with them, and a number of others on here is that they seem to make decisions and judgments here on people based their personal experiences alone, and those personal experiences I feel are just theirs, and not based on living in or having contact with an NDN community off of the internet.
On a typical basis I see them make comments similar to "if you are not enough NDN by blood to be facing discrimination, then you are not really NDN." To me such a view point and statement shows that they most likely are not living in, or dealing with NDN people off of the internet. I know full bloods that have grand kids are low BQ totally white looking that are considered as NDN by the community they live in regardless if they are enrolled or not. I know of such things in communities I am not even a part of, but have been told of by members of various communities.
Being NDN was never something based on how much discrimination a person was going through in their lives. Of course never was the concepts of BQ or enrollment until the coming of NONs and the social institutions and concepts they set up. Issues of BQ, enrollment, lack there of, cultural awareness/lack of, full blood vs mixed blood, high bq vs low etc etc do give us all different experiences and views of the world. A full blood living traditionally on the rez I will concede is the truest to what it means to be NDN, and did prior to the coming of NONs, however the other circumstances I mention were brought and created by NONs coming here and causing those issues in NDN country. Those issues should be used against some, and their status as an NDN person being denied of them because they are not facing some sort of discrimination because of being NDN. That might not really fit into this thread, but I do see it come up in similar threads, and I usually say nothing to avoid a conflict with that person.
Though I am not in this thread advocating that anyone claiming some NDN ancestor or ancestry is NDN or should be considered as such; I am pointing out there are loop holes in much of what has been discussed here and the terms used in the discussion. Some may not like them pointed out for various reasons, but in dealing with people with real emotions and concerns, such things need to be pointed out and discussed.
