View Single Post
Old 12-23-2011, 12:59 PM   #49
Teen Dancer
User InfoThanks / Tagging InfoGifts / Achievements / AwardsvBActivity Stats
ECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scale
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 421
Credits: 0.00
Savings: 0.00
Originally Posted by yaahl View Post
ECSN, you refer quite a lot to "we" and "our". Can you clarify who exactly are the "we" and "our"? It will assist with keeping your posts clear.

Have any of the legit native descendant groups ever considered forming a national organization to represent them? I encourage you to research Metis, off-reserve and non-status social and political groups in Canada for a template. I would also encourage you to research the development of the Assembly of First Nations - although they represent status Indians living on reserve or federal granted lands, they do have an interesting history for the inception to now being the government-go-to organization for Aboriginal Affairs.

I think what I'd like to see with your posts is more of your opinion/narrative on them rather than just cutting and pasting large amounts of text. Perhaps to make things easier for folks to read, you could give us a synopsis of the article you are referring to and then just give the links or citation. People tend to skip over blocks of pasted text if there is no conclusion/opinion/narrative/critique of it.

What I think I am seeing with respect to the USA is something we saw here for a number of years and that was the divide between status and non-status people. Although Canadian tribes were never forced to relocate to a central territory, our tribes were documented and treated with by both the pre-confederation UK and post-confederation Canada, people and bands were left of the registry and excluded from the treaties merely because of the time of the year in which the treaty was signed. Many folks were out in the summer fishing and hunting camps when the census and treaties were signed.

Add in the Indian Act enfranchisement of women who married out, and both men and women who went to college or university, joined the military or joined the clergy who were also enfranchised. Then other were enfranchised simply for wanting to leave the reserve and seek employment in the urban areas. Still others were enfranchised by being beaten by the Indian agents until they signed their enfranchisement papers. Children in residential schools were also enfranchised by force or appeal. Those enfranchisements made all those people instant white folks with no way to regain their status again.

I would encourage your group to research the development, implementation and enforce and effect of Bill C-31 of 1985. Thousands of people re-gained their status and children of women who had lost their status because of marrying out, could finally have their kids registered. Bill C31 has its flaws and gaping holes in what it covers but it was a start.

I see and understand the arguments of both sides regarding "there is a reason these people are not enrolled" but if I use my own country's history of enfranchisement and attempts to narrow down those bands in which were treated with, then we too would have reasons to not enroll someone. I also understand the notion of descendancy and if a person who claims to be a descendant can not prove it, then there is little that anyone should be expected to do.

Perhaps the arguments shouldn't be about who is eligible for enrollment but rather looking at why they were left off or enfranchised. I think some of the problems with the groups that are seeking federal recognition is that they are attempting it as a group rather than each "member" seeking their status with BIA. Up here, we have a few categories of status, each one is very specific to whether status can be passed on to children and where the status ends for that person's descendants. (I personally have issues with the ending of status because of a rule book - see McIvor v Minister of Aboriginal Affairs). I would recommend that your group ECSN, look into and research that as well.

We have discussed uniting as a more united group of various tribes. I myself have a few times tried to start this for the Virginia and NC descendants. It is still a on going process. With what I started I did not want our group seeking any recognigtion. Me personally I do not think people should have to get the government which attempted genocide on us to recognize them. There is no other race or group of people in the world which needs to get a special card from the government to recognize them. Maybe the Aboriginals in Austraila but I do not research them awhole lot. People of Mexico are all native americans and free to claim to be orignal people of Mexico. Most of the original treaties in the USA only had the chiefs sign on behalf of a tribe with no individual names of the tribe's people. Here to even claim we are native american we have to gather 250 people then show that all 250 people stayed together for 111 years and had constant relations with the government just to get a card to claim who we are. People should be able to just claim on their own behalf. The federal supreme court ruled in my families favor that we are native american so my family is federally recognized yet we can't get a card lol The Catawba is federal recognized and they know my family is part of them, me and Gene Blue discussed it it a few times. Issues there is when they got federal they put a ad in the south Carolina paper and all descendants had to send a letter in by a certain date, alot of descendants did not know about it so they went past the deadline. I'm still researching my Creek stuff, my grandmother's family is all Creek named and they are on Coweta county, GA records as early at 1830. Her family stayed with the creek trader's family so I'm guessing that is why they did not get removed. There is not any records of their last names just first names, Her name was Senoa, Her whole family is all named weird names all ending with the letter A. Senoa also being the name of several Creek indians from the Coweta tribe of Coweta county at the 1830 time frame. If I actually research it I'm sure I could find some of her family on the removal rolls. Several of the main streets in Coweta county is named after my family. The Read family is who took our family in. East coast tribes was moved around so much that the descendants is a big mix of various tribes and then you have the various mixs of whites and blacks. We are a true rainbow in both race and tribes lol. The entire Nansemond tribe of Virginia is my blood family lol Pretty much the Ohio, Sc, Va, NC, Maryland, Kentucky, and Tennesse native people is all related by blood so personally I don't see why they all don't just form one group and all work together lol. Hell just form a group and call it South Eastern Native americans lol Personally I say all native people unite and all at once protest at the white house saying we want to change the federal recognigtion process to where there is two types of recognigtion, one we apply for federal rec on a single person basis and another where we apply thru entire tribe basis. One of the bad parts about Federal recognigtion here, is even though the government gets you enrolled, the tribe itself can at anytime disenroll you, that is a big issue now days in the USA, usually before a election many people will magically get disenrolled, once disenrolled you will lose all your indigenious rights and benefits, this would not happen if people was able to apply on a person to person basis.
ECSN is offline