Talk:Cherokee

From assessment subpage

This article needs a serious re-adjustment before it should be back on the A list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.6.2 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I really agree. Surely the lable "Cherokee" should not be the title of the article but "Tsalagi". The term "Cherokee" should be diverted to "Tsalagi". The reference to Tsalagi should not exist as a footnote to Cherokee. It is derisory. As it stands the article seems quite racist to me. LookingGlass (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The majority of Cherokees use the word "Cherokee" to describe themselves, so I can't see how the use of that word could be construed as being racist. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Information on the three Federally recognized tribal entities needs expanded (particularly coverage of the Eastern Band), general editing and organization needed. Aaron Walden

NOTE: I agree with Aaron's assessment of this article, I can add Eastern Band content. Waya sahoni 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC). Also added United Keetoowah Band Info and Article. Waya sahoni 09:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)UPDATE: Cherokee Nation, UKB, and Eastern Band sections broken out and expanded. Waya sahoni 09:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Length

The article is too long. Cherokee history and Cherokee military history provide a space for specific historical information; however, after their creation an IP user greatly lengthened the general summaries of history in this article. A great deal of writing remains uncited. The "Acculturation" section should be summarized, with an useful information moved to Cherokee history. The culture section should be a broad overview with specific information moved to Cherokee society (which desperately needs a massive overhaul by someone who is not a New Ager and isn't simply plagiarizing the Cherokee Nation website). Slightly more info about the EBCI and UKB would be good, accompanied by a reduction in info about CN. "Membership controveries" is far too long; perhaps it merits its own article? The Cherokee Freeman section only pertains to the Cherokee Nation, since Cherokee Freedman have not petitioned to join the United Keetoowah Band, so this could be moved to the CN article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Worcester v. Georgia

Although important from a legal history standpoint, it gave no relief to the Cherokee and its only substantive decision was that Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler should be released from jail. Thier detention was the only question the case addressed. Furthermore, no Cherokee was a party to the suit; it's called Worcester v. Georgia rather than Ross v. Georgia for a reason. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Georgia law in question was about forbidding whites from living in the Cherokee Nation without license for the State of Georgia, if they were within the claimed territorial boundaries of that state. It was about the authority of the State of Georgia over white men, not the authority of the State of Georgia over the lands of the Cherokee Nation. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

George Guess, aka Sequoyah

A resident of the Lower Towns in the southwest of the Cherokee Nation East, he became a strong advocate of Cherokee emigration westward over the Mississippi River twenty years before the Treaty of New Echota. He himself followed that path in 1822, and it was from the Cherokee Nation West in Arkansas Territory that he published his syllabary. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Should there be another page devoted to the history of the Cherokee?

When I first started editing this article, there was a substantial amount of historical material on the Cherokee up through the beginning of the Anglo-Cherokee War, a blurb on removal, and not much else history-wise. I've added material covering that war and subsequent history up through the end of the Chickamauga wars in 1794. Adding more will probably double the size of the article.

Should not the article "Cherokee" focus mostly on the three modern tribes with short summations of their common history? That way the history could be covered more extensively in s separate article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because it is called "Cherokee", it is meant to encompass the entirety of all things Cherokee, including the history. As you already know, there are individual pages that cover each of the modern tribes, so there is no need to make the Cherokee article solely about them as well. It is never a bad idea, of course, to make a separate page (or pages) that are only about the Historical details of the Cherokee people.

If you believe that you are adding too much information to the history, then you should make a short blurb of what you are adding, and post a link to your newly created page about that history matter. Thanks, Ono (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ono you sound like you're contradicting yourself. You start by saying "No" don't make a separate page and then end the paragraph by saying "it's not a bad idea to make a separate page about the history only"... I don't get it. // Gbern3 (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you're still actively editing this page but yes, I think you should create a new History of the Cherokee article. It would follow wikipedia's policy on summary style WP:SS which basically states that once an article becomes too big, it should be split into smaller daughter articles. Another issue is that the table of contents is too long which is not a violation of policy but looked down upon when it comes to Featured article criteria because it becomes overwhelming. Here's an example of why. If the history had it's own article both issues (article length and TOC length) could be resolved. // Gbern3 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

New section

I'm going to be adding perhaps a section a day or every few days, with citations, until Cherokee history in the article has the same amount of material after the beginning of the French and Indian War that it had before it. Very likely that will mean an article with a greatly increased length, in need of serious trimming. Well, that will happen too. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

I reverted several changes that were made this evening by someone who has consistently refused to use the Talk page for discussion, and I will continue to do so with no further explanation after tonight, unless such discussion takes place here, per Wikipedia rules.

First, Sequoyah lived 150 years and while appropriate to an article on the Cherokee is not appropriate to a template with stats and info for the three modern Cherokee tribes. Which is the reason the flags were there in the first place, because the Cherokee did not freeze in time in 1838.

• Sequoyah didn't live for 150 years ... He is the most significant Cherokee person in their history. The flags are already on their respective organizations article no need to repeat it here. I put Sequoyah pic up last year and no body seemed to mind until natty came by and changed without consulting with the community first. This article is about the people and not about flags.

Second, Worcester v. Georgia had nothing to do with the Cherokee, except as background. They were not party to the suit. The ruling had no effect on the Cherokee Nation East. Contrary to the statement in the paragraph I removed, it is not influential, merely notable, and only then in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, not in its effect on the Cherokee. Again, the plaintiffs were two white men suing for their constitutional rights, not the Cherokee doing anything for Native American rights. The paragraph in question is certainly appropriate to the section on Cherokee removal and/or Trail of Tears, but it is not appropriate to the introduction of this article. I will continue to remove it every time it is place at the beginning of the article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Both these court rulings had everything to do with the Cherokee and certainly belongs in the introduction because of it's significance.

They may be important, but they most certainly dont belong in the opening paragraph. I'm not going to get involved, as you two need to resolve this one yourselves. Ono (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

the cases sure as Hell does ... You're just some guy or gal on RC patrol with no background in Native American history, you have no purview ... Bring an expert on the subject, if you can find one better than me, other than natty.

I currently reside in the Cherokee nation, am a member of the CNO, and consider myself well studied in Cherokee history. I did not disput the fact that it is an important fact. I said that it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph, which is an introduction to the article. Ono (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly belongs in the introduction which serves as an outline to the entire article. I realize I'm talking to amateurs in writing and Native American history (which don't surprise me on Wikipedia) ... I will cease improving this article and move on to a different tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.6.2 (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that a single court case is so unfathomably important that it belongs in the opening paragraph of an article that covers the history of a people over several hundred years? Perhaps you are the one that is the amateur. And there is no need to be so rude, as we are all trying to make this article better. And, for the record, I am not trying to discourage you from editing this page, I am just trying to get you to talk about your major edits on the talk page, so a consensus can be met before you make them. Sorry your feelings got hurt, and thanks for your work on improving the article, Ono (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that we have some sort of edit war going on, and I am getting drawn into it. I have requested a full page protect until the matter has been resolved. User"204.96.6.2 continues to remove the flags of the cherokee nation in favor of pictures of a woman and sequoyah. He still hasnt given an adequate explanation to justify this. They are going to watch the page for a while to see if it persists.. Ono (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ono just removed sourced images and replaced with un-sourced images. Its a picture of the most significant Cherokee and a painting of a full blooded Cherokee woman painted in the 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.6.2 (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of the flags of the cherokee tribes, which has been on the main page for over a year. It has already been discussed several times, and those were the images deemed suitable for the opening of this article. Just because you believe that Sequoyah was the most significant cherokee (Several people would disagree, believe that, for example, John Ross, leader of the Cherokee Nation during the trail of tears, was the most significant Cherokee), doesn't give you the right to remove the flags of the tribes to put your pictures in.

a year? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cherokee&oldid=255113771 ... December 1, 2008 had images of people up ... not flags ... I can easily find an authority to state that Sequoyah is most significant ... not because I say it is. I know the importance of citation ... this is pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.6.2 (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The flags have been a source of debate for ages, and have been on the page in some for quite some time (I assumed that it was a year in total.) And I can easily find the authority to say that he wasn't. I agree that arguing is poinltess. Ono (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a year in total ... your logic is flawed. I will not continue a argument with illogical Wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.6.2 (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As i said, I assumed, my sincerest apologies that i did not have the exact amount of time to the exact number of minutes that it has been up there. And I would suggest that you see Wikipedia:Be Civil toward other editors, as you are being overly rude in some of your edits and posts. Thanks, Ono (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the step of contacting representatives of the three tribal governments--actual Cherokee government people not merely self-identified Cherokee--and they all prefer the flags, so the flags are what will remain. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if they did say that they would rather have the flags on the page, you wouldn't be able to cite it, as it is OR. Thanks, Ono (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I can just as easily write them and let them know Wikipedia doesn't care what they think, which I'm sure will end with letters or emails of protests, followed ultimately by the return of the flags. This article is supposed to be about a Native American people that still exists in modern tribes, so let's at least pretend to be polite. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't being impolite, I was stating the rules of Wikipedia. Any information that you have gathered from outside sources (e.g. the tribes, people in the tribes etc) cant be cited on wikipedia, per the No Original Research rule. And, I am prefectly aware of what this article is supposed to be about, so why dont we all try not to make incorrect assumptions, hmm? Ono (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Now what you are saying is that courtesy is irrelevant, and that all that matters is what Wikipedia determines by looking into its own navel. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not saying anything about courtesy. I was trying to save you any trouble in contacting several tribal offices spread across numerous states all for something that you cant post on Wikipedia. But you are obviously set on taking whatever I say in a negative manner. So, by all means, waste your time and money getting useless research. Ono (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There only three Cherokee tribes, and and it's not like I've never contacted them before. In fact, I once talked to Arnold General for over two hours, another time for almost an hour. I just wanted their opinion; you are incorrect, I can post what their opinion is on this page all I want. On the article page, no, but here, yes. And, if Wikipedia chooses to replace the flags with patronizing outdated images, I can pass that all too. I have Comcast phone, so long distance costs me nothing extra.

The reason I replaced the picture of Sequoyah and the one of John Ross that were there when this started is because the Cherokee are three modern, multi-faceted legal entities, not just quaint extinct exotics. The person who replaced the flags is a unregistered user who refuses to use the Talk page. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you believe that I do not agree with your edits. I reverted the edits that changed the pictures from flags to sequoyah and the painting of the elderly woman. There are only three recognized tribes, this is correct. However, they have offices in several states around the nation.
I just wanted their opinion; you are incorrect, I can post what their opinion is on this page all I want. I didnt dispute your right to post your OR on the talk page, and if you read up, I never said anything about the talk page. I only said that you couln'd post any of your researched information on the main page. So no, I am not incorrect. It would appear that you have finally caught on to that, so that part of the discussion is over.
I have Comcast phone, so long distance costs me nothing extra. Again, you are already set to take whatever I say in a negative manner. Ono (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"It would appear you have finally caught on to that"...nice to know you're not just condescending to Native Americans. I realized that from the outset, which is why I was arguing with you. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you knew from the start that I wasn't referring to the talk page, then what was the point of you drawing out this utterly ridiculous argument for this long? And who are you to make any judgement on my character? I could say something like "You are being snide, rude, and hateful to everyone that disagrees with you" or something along those lines, but I won't. Let's try to work on editing the article instead of bickering over something that, in the long run, will not really matter to the overall article. Ono (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't what I meant. You were not being clear about what you meant. What you were trying to say was something I already know, have known. That's why what you were saying made no sense. And since the point was so obvious, it was condescending of you to assume I didn't know that already. An attempt to put me on the defensive. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world would I be talking about OR on the talk page? I never specified that it wasnt allowed on the talk page. Simple inferrence would tell you, by simply reading what I said you wouldn't be able to cite it, as it is OR, that I was talking about the main page (I said "The Article" several times.) I was clear enough that the average person should be able to pick up on what I meant. And it wasn't condescending, because you said that you didnt know what I was talking about, as you just admitted. Ono (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world would I put in the article that the three Cherokee tribes preferred the flags as opposed to the historical images? That is exactly what you're "informing" me that what the Cherokee want isn't valid implies. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said that what they said it wasnt valid. You enjoy putting words into people's mouths... (doesn't really work when the text is written and everyone can see it.) I said that you wouldnt be able to use whatever they say on the article (as a reference for the flags, which is what I got from reading what you wrote), as it is Original Research. I said nothing else concerning that. If i misread or misinterpreted what you wrote, then I am sorry. Thanks, Ono (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Treaties and History

I see that there are several treaties listed. I have cut and pasted the entire section to a new page, cutting the length of the article significantly. Of course, we can add more info about each treaty in the coming weeks. Please offer any objections here. Thanks, Ono (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Given their length of just the brief one-line description, yes, new page was a good idea. But you might want to add a little blurb instead of just a link. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good move to make the new page and the following suggestion. I agree there were too many listed within the article.--Parkwells (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

History Section

I do believe that, when the History section is longer than the rest of the article combined, you know there is a problem. We don't need every detail covered in this article. I would suggest making an article named "History of the Cherokee". Then you can move the majority of the info to that, and leave a small summary that covers the basic history of the Cherokee, such as a section for Cherokee origins, pre-European contact, the 18th century, the 19th century, the 20th century and today, or something along those lines. There is no chance of this article obtaining GA status when it is so long. They tend to like short, sweet and to the point, while covering what needs to be covered. Thanks, Ono (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

GA? I know what an FA is, but can't remember what a GA is.

I only added as much information as I did because there was so much of the earlier history until the beginning of the Anglo-Cherokee War and then not much later, leaving it top-heavy. You should have seen the article before I made changes like shifting what amounted to three pages of stuff on the Trail of Tears, most of it in loooooonnnggg blockquotes, to "Cherokee removal". I'm amenable to whatever y'all decide to do, just trim what's there, or do that and add an article on "History of the Cherokee". If you create the article, I'll contibute.

My additions, by the way, were quite restrained for me. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could add more material to the other sections in order to balance it, which, of course, we should do anyway. The UKB in particular are getting the short end of the stick with the amount of space which they are allowed here. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article revamp

Since what we're talking about doing is a revamp, I thought the tag would be appropriate. I got the idea from the Muscogee (Creek) article.

By the way, the Indigenous peoples of North America portal is dead, so there's no vehicle for rating articles like this. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not much action has taken place on the request to split the article. I could create a Cherokee military history article if that is amenable to people. Other information in the article could be shortened. For instance, the "marriage" entry is long, doesn't say which time period, and has no references. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The complete information about Cherokee warfare (with several additional sections) is up at Cherokee military history. I summarized the information in this article. A lot is can still be trimmed (language, European contact, etc.). Enrollment info can go under the tribes. Once it's trimmed glaring gaps can be filled, such as the need for info about the modern EBCI.-Uyvsdi (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Cherokee history has been created and can be expanded.-Uyvsdi (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Related article to explain "Cherokee princess" descent myths

I suggest to jump on the link to the Circassian beauty talk page, but this is more on the lines of WP:OR with further reading on the subject on Circassian beauties married wealthy white American men in the 19th century. I began to feel the myth on the Cherokee princess was actually a person who makes the claim are possibly descendants from a "Circassian beauty". It traces to another myth on Circassian beauties, who were "harem girls" of the Middle East under the Ottoman Empire, not American Indians and how the Cherkess is mistakenly called "Cherokee" to mean something else. The beauties are Circassians or Cherkess people from the Caucasus mountains, captured by the Ottomans or Russians during the Circassian war of the 1850's and somewhat put into the slave trade in Turkey or Arabia, then bought as slaves by Europeans in North or West Africa, for these women to be sent to America and finally bought by male slave owners to be married & to bear children with. [1] They are a very small number to begin with or were mistaken as "Asian" or "African" peoples, despite the evident ethnic origins of the Circassian/Cherkess population are Central Asian. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend to read the Penutian languages article (link provided) and read the subsection on the linguistic origins and hypothesises of Penutian and subrelative Hokan languages are distant relatives to both the Uralic-Altaic and Turkic languages. The possibilities of an Arctic-Eurasian ethnolinguistic link between the Cherokee, Hungarians and Turks, the Siberians, the Inuit and who knows with the Basques and Circassians included in the hypothesis, likewise known as the Cal-Ugrian derived from California and Hungarian. There should be more hard evidence from genetic research to proof of Eurasian travels or migrations into pre-Columbian North America, before one can assume the North American Indian race or languages are related to the Hungarian and Turkish languages. Cal-Ugrian is an unusual term to name the majority of indigenous languages: i.e. Hokan, Penutian, Ute-Aztecan, Athapaskan, Siouan, Algonkian, Chocta-Muskoghean and Iroquoian (Cherokee) spoken in North America, to a macrofamily of peoples spanning halfway the globe, from Circassia in Europe to the Chukchi of Asia to the Cherokee in the Americas. Mike D 26 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Superfluous references

Below are references from the article that are not connected to any inline citations. Most likely some of these were used for information in the article, so if anyone can create citations connecting them to article writing, they are available here:

• Alderman, Pat. Dragging Canoe: Cherokee-Chickamauga War Chief. (Johnson City: Overmountain Press, 1978).
• Brown, John P. Old Frontiers: The Story of the Cherokee Indians from Earliest Times to the Date of Their Removal to the West, 1838. (Kingsport: Southern Publishers, 1938).
• Cherokee Nation. here Buyer Beware, Only Three Cherokee Groups Recognized. November 13, 2000 (Accessed May 21, 2007
• Christensen, P.G., Minority Interaction in John Rollin Ridge's The Life and Adventures of Joaquin Murieta MELUS, Vol. 17, No. 2, Before the Centennial. (Summer, 1991 - Summer, 1992), pp. 61–72.
• Eckert, Allan W. A Sorrow in Our Heart: The Life of Tecumseh. (New York: Bantam, 1992).
• Ehle, John (1988). Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation. Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-23954-8. 
• Evans, E. Raymond. "Notable Persons in Cherokee History: Ostenaco". Journal of Cherokee Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 41–54. (Cherokee: Museum of the Cherokee Indian, 1976).
• Evans, E. Raymond. "Notable Persons in Cherokee History: Bob Benge". Journal of Cherokee Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 98–106. (Cherokee: Museum of the Cherokee Indian, 1976).
• Garroutte, Eva Marie. Real Indians: identity and the survival of Native America. University of California Press, 2003.
• Haywood, W.H. The Civil and Political History of the State of Tennessee from its Earliest Settlement up to the Year 1796. (Nashville: Methodist Episcopal Publishing House, 1891).
• Hill, Sarah H. Weaving New Worlds: Southeastern Cherokee Women and Their Basketry. University of North Carolina Press, 1997. ISBN 0-8078-4650-3.
• Kilpatrick, Jack and Anna Gritts. ‘’ Friends of Thunder: Folktales of the Oklahoma Cherokees .’’ Norman: University of Oklahoma Press , 1995. ISBN 0-8061-2722-8.
• Klink, Karl, and James Talman, ed. The Journal of Major John Norton. (Toronto: Champlain Society, 1970).
• Mankiller, Wilma; Wallis, Michael (1999). ‘’Mankiller: A Chief and Her People.’’ St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-20662-3.
• Meredith, Howard and Mary Ellen. ‘’Reflection on Cherokee Literary Expression.’’ New York: Edwin Mellon Press, 2003. ISBN 0-7734-6763-7.
• Moore, John Trotwood and Austin P. Foster. Tennessee, The Volunteer State, 1769-1923, Vol. 1. (Chicago: S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1923).
• Ramsey, James Gettys McGregor. The Annals of Tennessee to the End of the Eighteenth Century. (Chattanooga: Judge David Campbell, 1926).
• Russell, Steve. "Review of Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America" PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review. May 2004, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 147–153.
• Thornton, Russell. The Cherokees: A Population History. University of Nebraska Pres, 1992.
• Strickland, Rennard (1982). ‘'Fire and the Spirits: Cherokee Law from Clan to Court.‘’ University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0-8061-1619-6.
• Sturm, Circe. Blood Politics, Racial Classification, and Cherokee National Identity: The Trials and Tribulations of the Cherokee Freedmen. American Indian Quarterly, WInter/Spring 1998, Vol 22. No 1&2 pp. ;230–258.
• Vickers, Paul T (2005). ‘’Chiefs of Nations First Edition: The Cherokee Nation 1730 to 1839: 109 Years of Political Dialogue and Treaties’’. iUniverse, Inc. ISBN 0-595-36984-7.

-Uyvsdi (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Possible solution to the adding of faux Cherokees

I initially added the "modern" famous Cherokee section since there was way too much emphasis on early history as opposed to living Cherokee people, but I see now this was a mistake. This section can be eliminated and all contemporary notable Cherokee can be listed on the articles for the tribes in which they are enrolled. That would eliminate the opportunity to add non-enrolled, quasi-Cherokee celebrities. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Unrecognized tribes

The number of small, start-up unofficial Cherokee tribal bands are above 200 in the year 2010. There was an article of the so-called Cherokee heritage groups on wikipedia, but on Oct. 2009 the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma made an official statement on they don't appreciate the majority of such tribes (deemed "fraudulent") whom either mock or misrepresent Cherokee culture, others don't have an accurate depiction of Cherokee history or tribal rituals, and a few are involved in serious criminal activities. But, the CNO welcomes all the world's Cherokee descendants whose ancestors not on the Dawes tribal roll (how to qualify for joining the CNO) to legitimately study their Cherokee heritage, and the regrets of the legal inability for them to join the tribe. Only the federal government can recognize an authentic Cherokee tribe such as the CNO, the United Keetoowah Band in Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokees in North Carolina. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Cherokees

Cherokees who live farther north towards Canada were escapees of the "trail of tears" forced marches, and they sought refuge under the British Canadian customs checkpoints. There isn't an exact statistical count of Canadians of Cherokee ancestry, but are thought to be over 100,000. Like Mexico and South America (i.e. Chile), there was speculation of Cherokee descendants in Canada with the US state of Michigan across the Great Lakes or Detroit river separating Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There are literately hundreds of different groups claiming to be "Lost Cherokees" from the Trail of Tears. Without reliable references, it is difficult to take these claims seriously. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

True, the problem lies in the 1813 Cherokee constitution, declared anyone who has at least one Cherokee ancestor is, an official ethnic Cherokee or eligible to join their tribe in word and by law. This is changed after the Trail of Tears migration and the childrenofebci.org is an organization representing the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians whom want to unite all the world's Cherokee population back to the tribe of their ancestors. The US government has done a disservice to many hundreds and thousands of Cherokee descendants whom have a self-identify and cultural identification being a Cherokee, except it is best to avoid fraudulent cases and speculation of who is a Cherokee. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence in section "18th century history"

When I first read "Overhill Cherokee Nancy Ward, Dragging Canoe's niece" I was very confused. Maybe somebody could change that sentence. Hopefully helpful (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable Cherokee case 1: Jimi Hendrix

Was Jimi Hendrix an enrolled tribal member or was he self-identified? Odestiny (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-identified, but biographers can back the claim of his maternal side was Cherokee and Choctaw Indian. She and her African-American husband (Jimi's father) in the US armed forces moved to Seattle after the outbreak of WWII. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable Cherokee case 2: Joaquin Murieta

Same goes to Californio bandit Joaquin Murieta except he has grandparents whose genealogical roots are in Florida (then under Spanish rule) migrated to Chile in the mid 1700's and intermarried with the local population of Spanish origins. Murieta arrived in Hermosillo, Sonora in Mexico in the 1830s in part of his land ownership in Mexican California before the gold rush and the US annexation occurred in 1848 and 1850 respectively. Murieta searched far and wide for his Cherokee Indian roots whom had scattered southward to flee the approaching American settlement in the turn of the 19th century. Even Chiriqui, Panama; and Chile is said to be inhabited by different peoples of "possible" Iroquoian genetic ancestry, perhaps from an ancient migration of nomadic tribes in the Americas had boat ride the shores of the Caribbean sea and Pacific coasts, might resulted in strangely similar name-sounding places "Chiriqui" and "Chile" (Chil-ro-que?), but these tribes were conquered by the Maya, Chibcha and Incas over the course of time. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What was written here is a myth, a theory and most of all, the tendency among South American nations to explore their ethnocultural origins. Chileans and Argentines had studied tall tales of their peoples are descendants of Visigoths whom settled northern Spain in the European dark ages, but failed to understand why the Gothic not the Latin element, was never dominant in Castilian or Spanish ethnography. The North Americans in Chile article discussed Anglo-American settlement in the Southern cone of South America, while the main indigenous populations of Chile or Argentina were the Mapuche cannot be identified to have Iroquoian genes and too far removed from any ethnological relationship with Siouan languages. Mike D 26 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable Cherokee case 3: Tommy Lee Jones

It is stated that Tommy Lee Jones has Cherokee ancestry from his grandmother (even stated in Wikipedia). Why not mentioning him in the list of approved Cherookees in history? (Unsigned comment above by Lil'Jaguar)

The notable people listed in the Cherokee article are people who lived before the current three tribes were established. Anyone alive today should be either listed in the article about the tribe in which they are enrolled, or, if they aren't enrolled, the List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Autonym

An anonymous IP editor keeps changing the autonym, so just be explicit: Aniyvwi (ᎠᏂᏴᏫ) means: "People (they are people)." Aniyvwiya (ᎠᏂᏴᏫᏯ) means "Indian (they are real people)" (see Prentice Robinson's 1996 Cherokee Dictionary, p. 52), and Aniyvwiyaʔi (ᎠᏂᏴᏫᏯᎢ) means "Cherokee (they originate truly/they are the Principal People)." The term "Aniyunwiya" has been inserted into the article, but "un" is a folk orthography for "v", the widely accepted transliteration of the nasalized "uh" or "Ꭵ," so this word would be ᎠᏂᏴᏫᏯ or "Indian." -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Sir Alexander Cumming

Could this gentleman's nationality be changed please? Cumming was in fact Scottish and not English. To put it into context, it's a bit like describing a Cherokee as being Creek. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Man 68 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Cherokee

I just watched a video about Cherokee people and noticed they pronounced Cherokee like "Churkey" (rhymes with turkey). Could a pronunciation note be added to the article (IPA), as it is with most non-English names? (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigur_Rós) I'm sure that's a valuable piece of information for many people. 77.57.213.194 (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC) (lKj)

I'm sad to see no-one cared to add the pronunciation. Here's another message in hopes that it'll be considered. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.209.116 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Part of why it wasn't added is there no source for the pronunciation. "A video" isn't sufficient for other users to verify it, nor would a single video be sufficient for the change. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

While it's true that we say "Churkey", that's not really a pronunciation. It's like people in the south saying "worsh" instead of "wash". You wouldn't want to tell someone "worsh" was the right pronunciation, even though that's how it's said. Odestiny (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Odestiny, your point makes sense and is mostly true. However, just to be fair, "Churkey" is indeed a pronunciation, lol. I am NOT the original poster, I am just pointing it out. I think the OP has a valid point anyways. Why couldn't it be added as just ONE of the ways the word is said? It is relevant information. Sometimes I get really sick of the Wikipedia source garbage. It always seems like when someone finds a source, it is never good enough. Is a Cherokee Tribe member not a good enough source? Are several Cherokee Tribe members not good enough? What if a group of people are being oppressed and no publications in their area will ever write about them? They will never have sources for anything. So is it ok to just pretend they don't exist or have a valid history or information? It really is one of the BIG problems I have with Wikipedia, it just seems like something is never good enough, unless the Mods or their Pets post it. TheCyndicate-com (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cherokee Influence on Formation of Southern American (English) Accent

I have read that the Cherokee language for example has many of the sounds that are now essential to the Southern American (English) Accent (commonly called the "Southern accent" used today by Whites and Blacks in the American South). Cousins of the Cherokee from the other Five Civilized Tribes are also believed to have influenced this non-indian accent.

Remember that during the early times of European settlement in the American South that Native American tribes were equal or superior in influence to European settlers (with lots of intermarriage) and thus may have helped to shape early Southern American dialect and pronunciation.

Later on the massive influx of West African slaves may had added another layer of influence to various Southern American accents especially since "house slaves" (as opposed to slaves who worked in the fields) played a major role in raising white children. This may have also allowed West African languages to influence Southern American pronunciation and even the use of some words and grammar.

This is not to discount the European influences on the formation of various Southern American dialects, but neither should these non-European influences be left out.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

African influences on South American English is well documented - I've never heard of Native American influences, and frankly I don't see how that would have happened.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to look at the early stages of European settlement when the Native American population was larger than the European--

Also (especially in the South) there was a great deal of intermarriage between early Scottish settlers and Native Americans that went on for generations.

Before Europeans began to outnumber Native Americans, the relations between Whites and Native peoples were completely different, and although sometimes hostile were usually actually very close relationships.

Later when Whites began to outnumber Indians is when the sustained trouble began.

But by then the Southern American accent had become established (with Native American influences) and new European settlers would assimilate into it.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WP can only include info from reliable published sources, ans such information must be verifiable to other readers. You need to be more specific than "I have read that", otherwise it can't be included in the article. - BilCat (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, new sections go at the bottom of talk pages, not the top. Cresix (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that citations are needed. But you have to mention the issue before citations can be hunted down (I don't have time to do it all myself).

Sorry about posting on the top of the talk page, I forgot about that rule.

Best,

98.245.150.162 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. I'll do some of the search for citations too, but the "Five Civilized Tribes" (all originally Southeastern Native American tribes, since forcibly relocated to Oklahoma) are the tribes thought to be early influenceers of the Southern American accent.

These tribes are all related to each other and include the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek (also called Muskogee), Chikisaw and Seminole.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from one source (again keep in mind that [for about three generations] there was a lot of mixing between Scotts-Irish settlers in the American South and Southern Native Americans, and it was only later that the most serious troubles began once whites started to outnumber Native Americans, but by then the local English accent had been influenced):

"The "Scots-Irish" dialect of southern English mingled with Cherokee and other Native American languages in a band running from western North Carolina to Oklahoma and East Texas, giving rise to the so-called backwoods, or highlands, southern dialect, which is faster and [more] high-pitched than tidewater southern and more nasal than Appalachian English. Some of the phonological features of the backwoods southern dialects undoubtedly come from Cherokee and other Native American languages. The south was the only area in the East where Native Americans mixed significantly with the whites. This occurred mostly with the poorer whites on the frontier. Substrate features include: nasality, tensing of vowels [e] instead of [E] rather than diphthongization as in Tidewater Southern English."

Here is the source (it's from a college course on linguistics, http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test3materials/AmericanDialects.htm ) obviously not usable for Wikipedia by itself, but it shows that there is University-level linguistics research behind this view.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As a linguist, I found this new information interesting. However, when I visited the link you provided for the source, I read the whole page which seemed to sum up what I already knew about American dialects. There was nothing anywhere that spoke about a Cherokee or Native American Substrate that affected the Southern Dialects. Just the usual information about West African influence. It could be that this page is class-related and we are nearly 9 months following your posting at this point, so the material for the class may have been changed. I will look more into this because it is interesting to me and report back. 98.64.73.221 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Tom

Suggestions and comments

The introduction and the "Early culture" section sound a little repetitive in the way they describe the Cherokee's migration to the South. I wonder if there is a better way to rephrase the idea.

In the "Trail of Tears" section, the passage "In 1827, Sequoyah led a delegation of Old Settlers to Washington, D.C. to negotiate for the exchange of Arkansas land for land in Indian Territory." is out of time with respect to the previous section that talks about 1839. This should be fixed.

I would be interested to read more about the Constitutions of the Cherokee nations. I believe it would be a good idea to create an article for that a link it to the "Government" section.

ICE77 (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A wide span of 12 years to have the Trail of Tears to build up and occurred by the Cherokee Nation's loss in the US Supreme Court case against the state of Georgia. The Cherokee were moving westward to Arkansas in the 1820's, Texas when it was under Mexican rule (1821-36) and small bands moved north or east across the USA in the 1830's out of concern by forced relocation was a possibility. The comment by ICE77 on the Cherokee shown their acceptance of voluntary relocation into Arkansas (as well into southern Missouri and western Kentucky) is correct. Mike D 26 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cherokee Nation of Mexico

I recall a wiki article on them (was since deleted) on the Cherokee Nation of Mexico, but was it verified before on their existence? Here's a web site of them http://cherokeediscovery.com/ Someone examine them closely and any connections they have with the CNO in the USA. Unless the "discovery" was a downright fraud of some kind, I have no information really on a declaration of the CNM are "fake" Indians. 71.102.1.101 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The deleted article had no sources. This is interesting: [2] so it appears that they have recognition in Mexico but definitely not in the US. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

They have "recognition" by proclmation of the governor of the Mexican state, not legislative recognition by its legislaturem that is all. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to take on this project, a good approach might be like the Texas Cherokees article, where the focus is the historical settlement of in Cherokees in Mexico. Several northern Mexican states did provide land grants to Cherokees in the early 19th century and Emmet Starr mentions their land claims. Sequoyah did actually die on the quest to encourage the Mexican Cherokees to reunite with the main group in Indian Territory. (The history I've read doesn't jibe with what's written on the CNM website at all). From their website, no one from the Cherokee Nation of Mexico actually seems to be from Mexico, so they could just be briefly mentioned at the end of the article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Spanish encountered Mississippian culture

The Spanish in present-day western North Carolina encountered Mississippian culture villages, not Cherokee, so it is inappropriate to include the 16th c. history as if it were Cherokee. The Mississippians were ancestral to the Muskogean Creek and Siouan Catawba in different areas. The Cherokee later used some of the village sites, but they did not build the mounds.Parkwells (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Several of the places mentioned in the Pardo chronicles may very well have been Cherokee, at least when you get to the areas where western North Carolina is now. The mountainous areas; Kituwa specifically is mentioned in one place. If you want to get really picky, they didn't encounter Muskogee or Catawba either, since neither of those existed as a tribe at the time. Even as late as the 18th century, society in the Southeast was built around the town. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Pisgah Phase? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Largest tribe

Why does both this article and Navajo people claim the title of largest federally recognized tribe? It has to be one or the other, correct? Onopearls ^(t/c) 05:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Navajo Nation is back to being the single, largest federally recognized tribe, with Cherokee Nation back to being second, but when you add all three Cherokee tribes together they are the largest collective tribe in the US. So maybe the claim should be pulled from this article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Scots section

"In contrast, a large portion of the settlers encroaching on their territories and against whom the Cherokee (and other Indians) took most of their actions were Scots-Irish, Irish from Ulster of Scottish descent, a group which also provided the backbone for the forces of the Revolution (a famous example of a Scots-Irishman doing the reverse is Simon Girty). It is a historical irony that those from a group seen as rebels or "Whigs" back home in the Isles became Tories in the Americas while those from a group now considered one of the most "Tory" in regards to the United Kingdom became Whigs in the Americas." - This section is confusing, first of all it was mainly the Tories (the origin of the word is 'Toraidh', an Irish gaelic word meaning rebel) who supported the Stuart (Jacobite) lineage. Second the Tory and Whig labels are confusing because of the American Whig party, which is not exactly the same thing as the United Kingdom's Whig party. Lastly the statement that 'the settlers encroaching on their territories' were Scots Irish (or Ulster Scots) maybe needs some citation, and the sentence could be clarified somewhat. The historical irony part strikes me as particularly POV, particularly as you infer an entire group of people (Scots, as per section header) to be Whigs and Rebels (the Whigs were a Unionist British Parliamentary party) and the Ulster Scots to be Tories (seemingly used here as a byword for British loyalism). 86.141.212.218 (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the latter assertion, that the Ulster Scots were 'Loyalist' in the British Isles, and 'rebels' in the American Revolutionary war, discounting the fact that the Ulster Scots largely fought against the British Crown at the Battle of the Boyne, however the Scots to whom your refer, including the Highlanders, were largely there in service of the British, not as exiles from Culloden etc. I would suggest this sentence, if it must be included, should be moved to the American Revolutionary war article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.172.179 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 31 January 2012‎ (UTC)