Talk:List of unrecognized tribes in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Aboriginal peoples, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Tennessee[edit]

The recent state compilation was an uncritical listing of 42 Native-American-related organizations founded in the state since 1970, the vast majority of which no longer exist, few which meet notability guidelines, only two can lay claim to an organization history prior to 1970, none of which have provided a provable 19th-century historical context, none that are publicly verifiable prior to 1970, and one (USET) that is a respected organization of federally-recognized tribes. These are not "unrecognized tribes" but culture clubs that wax and wane with movies and development-money talk. See "an incomplete historical catalog of Native American and Native-American-related organizations in Tennessee", with dates, leaders and historical references. tpk (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The article's opening line says it all:
"Unrecognized tribes are those groups that are (or claim to be) domestic Native American by ethnicity, but are not recognized by either the federal government (through the Bureau of Indian Affairs) or state government in the United States." emphasis added
If an actual article on a specific group, that group would need to show notability, but this is only listing... and the listing is limited to only those with documented sources. In this case for the groups deleted out and undeleted under the Tennessee listing, the documentation is the listing provided by the Cherokee Nation on unrecognized groups claiming to be Cherokee or Cherokee-related. Because some culture clubs are really a true unrecognized tribal members (where some have ample state and federal documentation) and others are just culture clubs, yet many others fall somewhere in between, this listing makes absolutely no distinction on where in that spectrum they fall. CJLippert (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The primary word here is "tribe", not "unrecognized". There is no "official" list of unrecognized tribes in Tennessee, but if one were to exist, it should be limited to groups that have some semblance of tribal identity according to federal or state guidelines, like a history older than 10 years, like current existence, like genealogical and geographical proximity. Tennessee has had state tribal-recognition guidelines in the past, and is working on them again; very few of these organizations have ever expressed an identity much less an interest in recognition as a tribe. We are not talking Mdewakantonwan or Little Shell groups here; we are talking 'Watab Band of Sauk Indians' and 'Remnant Izatis Nation of Dakota' - fictional creations of descendants long removed from tribal reality. FYI, the Cherokee Nation (CNO) resides in Oklahoma, not Tennessee, and can hardly be considered an authority on what exists in Tennessee today or in the recent past. Was just up in your neck of the woods in july. Next time you drive by Onamia, give a shout out to my brother at Lakedale. tpk (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"making that distinction is not our role; citing where we got the information is." I disagree. You're in Minnesota, i'm in Tennessee. Those who know the difference between uncritical lists of organizations and groups that are tribes have a responsibility to clarify and correct lists composed by people who have no direct or historical knowledge of the topic. For example, you constantly include "United South and Eastern Tribes", an organization of federally-recognized tribes here in Nashville that is offended by people referring to them as a tribe. They have never sought any recognition as a tribe, but are continually included in lists that have no human critical review. Another example: the "Ani-Kwatani Mission of Chickamuga Cherokee" existed as a mental aberration here in Chattanooga from 1996-1998. The founder claimed to offer sexual healing of an s&m variety, never claimed to be a band or tribe, never had a following of more than 3. Please, quit messing with lists of organizations you know nothing about. tpk (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are making these edits in good faith, however I have to disagree with the assessment that the "geographic" location of an editor should really be what's pertinent here. If I'm understanding your argument correctly, you're challenging the placement of some of the referenced material in the article based on your own personal observations, without offering any supporting reliable references to support your conclusions. I'd suggest that if you really want to move ahead in this situation, please provide other editors with some reliable sources to support what you're contending, without them, in my opinion you're engaged in WP:OR. If you're attempting to challenge the validity or appropriateness of the source(s) currently being used to support the inclusion of material, please provide other editors with your reasoning for disputing their usefulness. Also, please do not continue to remove material from the article until consensus regarding the issue has been reached here on the article talk page. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
tpk, I have reverted your edit, but have also commented out all the entities that were listed only on the Fraudulent Group List ("CFlist" in the wiki-citation) published by the Cherokee Nation, and had no other comments associated with them. We need to resolve this issue and commenting them out is only a temporary solution. Whether real or fraudulent, they are all unrecognized entities claiming to be tribes, all from a reliable list. Maybe a solution would be to rename the article as "List unrecognized entities claiming to be Indian tribes in the United States" and also work on the article's opening paragraph. Another solution would be to split off those who are legitimate unrecognized tribes (such as the Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin) from those non-legitimate ones. If splitting the article, there will need to be reliable source(s) chosen to separate the two groups apart. BTW, there are NO entities in Tennessee qualifying as being recognized either by the DOI-BIA or by the TN-CIA, so even legitimate unrecognized tribes in Tennessee would be considered "fraudulent" under those guidelines, and as long as even an entity is formed by legitimate tribes, as long as they don't meet either guidelines, they too would be considered fraudulent groups in Tennessee. Splitting the article may also resolve a similar issue the current article is facing under the "Arkansas" section. Any other ideas? CJLippert (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you that the edits of tpk have been reverted. I believe, however, I would need to disagree with the statement "making these edits in good faith". There is a great deal of political distress here in Tennessee by those who wish to denigrate the American Indian entities in Tennessee. There has been a great deal of strife bethween those who seek actualization and suffrage as American Indians and those who have ties or commitments to American Indian entities which are not a part of the Tennessee Indigenous American Indian community. Yes, Not all American Indians who are not part of the Tennessee Indigenous American Indian community (TIAIC) have attempted to denigrate, but, it would seem, they are a minority voice.
There has been a much proliferation of mis-information regarding the standing of what A State can do in regard to the NON-recognized American Indian Entities. We as members of the TIAIC seek the means whereby to continue as we have for the past several hundred years. We seek to further association with those American Indian entities, within and outside the state of Tennessee, who seek to further the aims and means of the TIAIC.
What those who seek do not seek the best interest of NON-Federally recognized American Indians forget to mention that
    • In 1823 the Supreme Court handed down a decision (Johnson v. M'Intosh) which stated that Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands. Subsequently the American Indian Removal Act of 1830 , members of the “Five Civilized Tribes” were removed to the West.
    • It wasn’t until 1879 that the following ruling was delivered by a court of the United States in Nebraska by Justice Elmer Dundy in his decision in United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook:

    "Webster's describes a person as 'a living soul; a self-conscious being; a moral agent; especially a living human being; a man, woman, or child; an individual of the human race. This is comprehensive enough, it would seem, to include even an Indian."

    • Until the Civil Rights act of 1924, American Indians were not even given the opportunity of citizenship in these United States of America
    • In Decisions of the Supreme Court of These United States of America, Federal Tribes are determined to be Dependent Domestic Nations or wards of the Federal Government and have No jursidiction outside of their own individual reservations. Yet they, some of their members, and some of the descendants of their members continue to attempt to influence states to forego the rights embued to each state in the Constitution of These United States of America
    • A lack of trust in the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs and certain members thereon has led those entities seeking recognition to not surrender / submit their documents of proof to said Commission
    • A Member of the council of a Federal Tribe (one of the Five Civilized Tribes) has stated that "All the Indians" were removed west with the relocation/forced migration. What does this mean for the "Tribes" which remain east?
    • The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
    • The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
    • The Band Poarch of Creek Indians
    • The Seminole Tribe of Florida
    With this statement one can see that the Politics of WHO is American Indian extends not only to NON-recognized American Indian Entities but extends even to Federally Recognized American Indian Tribes. If it was just this statement, it would seem like a new idea, but it is and has been contention between Federally Recognized American Indian Tribes for years. Recently the Cherokee Nation of Okalahoma acknowledged that there actually are three (3) Federal Cherokee American Indian entities.
    • American Indians continue to remain the only minority group required to have a Card to claim such standing
    So, while it may seem that there may be a "simple" solution to how to list NON-recognized American Indian Entities, the contentions between "haves" and "have-nots" as well as between "haves" and "haves" continues to be one that will require an answer from the States (Amendment 10 of the Constitution of These United States of America) and from the Federal Government of These United States of America. mje —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

    note that it is now march 2014. as of 30 june 2010 the State of Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs terminated, and no legislation has since been proposed to re-start it. also note that there are no Tennessee state-recognized tribes in Tennessee, that there is no locatable or state-registered entity known as "Tennessee Indigenous American Indian community (TIAIC)", that 2014 is the first legislative session in the past ten years in which no new legislation was proposed to "recognize" a group of people as a tribe, and that a federally-recognized tribe, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, now has Tennessee land placed in federal trust. tpk (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

    Southern Cherokee Nation[edit]

    This section was originally at the talk pages of State recognized tribes

    The user at User:74.138.62.77 made an edit to this page consisting of the following:

    As of 3-10-07 from the Kentucky cabinet, “The Southern Cherokee do NOT HAVE legislative recognition. They may have a couple of letters of appreciation from State officials but that does not make them legally recognized. The State has NO criteria for recognition.”'
    This was the reply received from The Kentucky Native American Indiana Council and the Kentucky cabinet when contacted by mail concerning the above false claim of State Recognition.
    Letters of appreciation and a document from the 19th century does not grant State Recognition just as the treaty of 1866 does not grant Federal recognition to any Southern Cherokee.
    Many groups try to claim to be more than what they are, this is an example. As a Native American I would love to see this state recognize an Indian group deserving of this honor. But groups that continually make false claims only hurts legitimate efforts toward this goal. The group making the above claim also boast of 600 members on their website, but only a small percentage is in Kentucky with the remainder of their tribal rolls residing throughout the United States. Many of their members were from the tribal rolls of a now disbanded Southern Cherokee Group from Weber Falls Oklahoma. If there is any doubt to this claim on State Recognition, contact the Kentucky Cabinet.

    To which, the user at User:71.227.132.35 apparently responded:

    The above comments are misleading in truth. Criteria for Kentucky State recognition of Native American tribes have not been established by the Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission (this could be years away). Therefore, Kentucky’s legislative body in all probability would not act anyway to recognize Native American tribes within the State of Kentucky. However, the late Governor John Y. Brown did recognize the Southern Cherokee Nation, on executive letter head, as an Indian tribe on December 26, 1893 ( http://www.southerncherokeenation.net/histdoc.htm ). Furthermore, a proclamation by incumbent Governor Ernie Fletcher, issued during Native American Heritage, month is a bit more than a letter of appreciation (http://www.southerncherokeenation.net/govfletcher.htm ). The current proclamation clearly states that Governor John Y. Brown welcomed and recognized the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky in 1893. The late Governor John Y. Brown's recognition is upheld by said proclamation and has not since been held for naught. On a more probable than not basis, once more formal criteria has been established for the recognition of Native American tribes within the State of Kentucky, the Southern Cherokee Nation will be grandfathered in as a bonafide Native American Tribe.
    “A brief history of how the Southern Cherokee ended up in Kentucky. In 1866, after the Civil War, the Southern Cherokee established a government in Webbers Falls, Oklahoma. They were half bloods and mixed blood Cherokee. Their first Chief was Confederate General Stand Watie. He petitioned the U.S. government to provide protection for the Southern Cherokee from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma; the full bloods. The full bloods burned the majority of the Southern Cherokee people out and killed many in the process. The Union Army maintained that they did not have the troops to protect the Southern Cherokee, so the slaughter continued. Some Southern Cherokee managed to survive in the Webbers Falls area, while many others were forced out into other states. Several of these states are Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, and Kentucky. After the death of Chief Stand Watie in 1871 the Southern Cherokee Nation was moved to Kentucky by his close cousin James Samuel Martin.”
    James “Samuel On The Hill” Martin is the great grandfather of Michael “Manfox” Buley, Principle Chief of the Southern Cherokee now headquartered in Henderson, Kentucky http://www.southerncherokeenation.net/NA%20Heritage%20Commission.htm . The Southern Cherokee Nation has been located in Henderson, Kentucky for over 140 years and have maintained a tribal government while continuing to burn their sacred fire.

    I've moved the above statements here to the talk page so that a synthesis of these two views may be developed for the article space. I would advise both parties that Wikipedia does not generally allow original research; edits should be verifiable, which means that another editor or even a non-interested reader should be able to access information which supports a claim of fact. Letters from the Kentucky Cabinet to a private individual generally would not fall under this category, nor would communications with the Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission. The reason is simple: I, for example (or any other reader outside a particular location), have access to neither of these; except that I contact these agencies myself. That's quite a burden to place upon the average Wikipedian. -- SwissCelt 08:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    03/17/07 Buffaloheart writes:

    Governors in the Commonwealth of Kentucky have historically recognized Native American Indian tribes and continue to do so. The Southern Cherokee nation in Kentucky was recognized by Governor John Y. Brown in 1893 and then acknowledged by Governor Ernie Fletcher by proclamation on November 20th, 2006. In 1991 the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky also recognized the Piqua Sept of Ohio Shawnee as an Indian tribe ( http://aiac.state.al.us/PIQUA%20tribal%20history.htm ). And at one time the White Cloud Cherokee tribe, now disbanded for whatever reasons, was also a Kentucky State recognized tribe. I find it disturbing that the Southern Cherokee Nation (SCN) is somehow in a dubious status based on unsubstantiated remarks posted by an obviously disgruntled soul. The Kentucky Native American Indian Council, Inc. (KNAIC) is sited as a resource to discredit the SCN, but the KNAIC is actually a private corporation of Native American activist ( http://www.ridgetopshawnee.com/ ) and should not be confused with the Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission (KNAHC) which is a part of the Governor’s Commerce Cabinet ( http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/khc/Native%20American_heritage.htm ). I find it difficult to believe that the disgruntled party received such a tactless reply from the so called Kentucky Cabinet. Why would the Honorable Governor Ernie Fletcher issue a laudatory proclamation acknowledging the SCN, and then in turn allow one of his cabinet members to publish such a defamatory letter about the SCN?

    On 3-19-07 User:74.138.62.77 made an edit to this page consisting of the following:

    The Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission (KNAHC)was where the reply was received from, not The KNAIC. The KNAHC has no mention of The SCN as a recognized tribe in KY, here is the site link to verify for yourself. The whole point to the discussion is that the state of Kentucky has no legislative recognized tribes. Here is the site link:

    http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/khc/Native%20American_heritage.htm

    Further more the state Governor does not have legislative or individual power to grant State recognition to a tribal group, it must pass the cabinet. Although an honor for the governor to personally recognize a tribe, legally it means nothing! I find it had to believe if Kentucky had a recognized tribe after all this time, that it is only found on that tribes web site, that is hard to believe in itself. As for being disgruntled, I have no interest in the SCN, only as student studying KY Indian history and events and have made no accusations against this group other then their claim to state recognition is incorrect and misleading.

    Buffaloheart writes:

    I find your statements very incongruent from one post to the other. You first stated that your alleged letter was from the Kentucky Native American Indian Council which is a corporation and now the letter is supposedly from a governmental agency. How can we believe you as a reliable source for the Wikipedia. You also initially purported that all the Southern Cherokee Nation had was a couple of letters of appreciation, but as it turns out the Southern Cherokee Nation has an authentic Commonwealth of Kentucky document, on executive letter head, recognizing them as an Indian tribe in 1893 ( http://www.southerncherokeenation.net/histdoc.htm ). The Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission (KNAHC) was not in existence until about a hundred years later, and has not yet developed criteria for the recognition of Native American tribes and in fact may not do so. The Southern Cherokee Nation now has a current proclamation that further validates Governor Brown’s initial recognition in 1893.

    Answers.com: “Governors in the United States originally lacked much power. They were often subordinate to the state legislatures and had little control over administrative agencies. However, political reforms in the early 20th century shifted power from the legislative to the executive branches of state governments, and today governors are among the most powerful political figures in the United States. At the National Governors Conference, developed from a meeting called (1908) by President Theodore Roosevelt, the nation's governors meet annually to discuss common political and governmental problems”.

    I think the point here is that The Cherokee Nation has been recognized by the executive branch versus the legislative branch. Governor Brown’s recognition is duly executed and genuine!

    Finally, Please do not edit the main article, you were previously warned not to do so.

    On 3-19-07 User:74.138.62.77 made an edit to this page consisting of the following

    This will be my final statement on this subject, the documents on you tribe's site does not say "Recognized!"This is from reading your own site documentation! It states Governor John Y. Brown Recognizes the SCN as an Indian Tribe on Dec 26-1893 and welcomes them to the State of Kentucky, not that they are a State recognized tribe, that designation did not in 1893. The newer document also no where on it shows that the SCN is recognized by the state of Kentucky. It states the same that, and I quote your document, “John Y. Brown Recognizes the SCN as an Indian Tribe on Dec 26-1893 and welcomes them to the State of Kentucky” and that “Now therefor I, Ernie Fletcher Governor of Kentucky do hereby pay tribute to.” No where on your site or referenced document does it grant you group State recognition, no where.

    Kentucky has no state recognized tribes. My sources are as follows:

    The Kentucky Government Web Site: http://www.kentucky.gov When searching for “Native American” No where on the site is the SCN found.

    The Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission (KNAHC): http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/khc/Native%20American_heritage.htm No where on the site is the SCN found.

    The SCN document you refer to so adamantly: http://www.southerncherokeenation.net/histdoc.htm No where is State recognition granted:

    Also for state recognition to be granted it requires multiple hearings. My own tribe that has State recognition took 2 years of testimony hearings in front of a Special House Committee and this legislation had to be voted upon and passed by both the State Senate and the House of Representatives. A single act by any Governor can not grant what you claim. Where are your sources to back up your claims on state government and the powers of individual governors?

    I admit I erred on the confusion of the KNAHC vs the KNAIC, I had been researching both and it was an editing/typing error on my part, which I did clarify. If that is very incongruent, no more so that a false claim to State recognition, which hurts the efforts of other groups to help achieve this for the state. My sources are clearly present here, there is nothing alleged on my part. The only alleged claim is to the SCN having State Recognition which I can find no other reference to that the documents on their site, which I can find no evidence of The State of Kentucky granting legal recognition.

    Show your sources and proof as I have done!

    3/20/07 Buffaloheart writes:

    The Southern Cherokee documents speak for themselves. No further proof is required. The preponderance of evidence is on the side of the Southern Cherokee Nation now located in Henderson, Kentucky for the last 140 years. There has been no proof presented on this forum that can negate the following summary of facts:

    1) No where are there official Kentucky State hardcopy documents, or electronic media documents indicating that the Southern Cherokee Nation is not a state recognized tribe. 2) The Southern Cherokee Nation was recognized as an Indian tribe about 100 years prior to the conception of the Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission (KNAHC). 3) The KNAHC does not recognize Native American Indian Tribes within the State of Kentucky, nor does the commission determine criteria for their recognition. The primary mission of the KNAHC is to preserve Native American Culture http://www.southerncherokeenation.net/NA%20Heritage%20Commission.htm . 4) The Commonwealth of Kentucky Legislative Branch has no history of recognizing Native American Tribes, but just recently started forming a task force to study the issue. The KNAHC will have two members on the proposed task force. 5) The Southern Cherokee Nation was recognized as an Indian Tribe 114 years ago. http://www.southerncherokeenation.net/histdoc.htm This is well before any recent action by the Legislative Branch to even begin a study of the Native American dilemma in the State of Kentucky. That dilemma being that the state of Kentucky was used only as hunting ground by several Native American tribes, but yet literally thousands of Kentuckians claim their Cherokee and Shawnee ancestry. 6) Governors of the Common Wealth of Kentucky have historically recognized the following tribes: The Southern Cherokee Nation in 1893, the Piqua Shawnee in 1991 http://aiac.state.al.us/PIQUA%20tribal%20history.htm and the White Cloud Cherokee tribe that is now disbanded. This has established a trend and several quasi Native American groups have since sought executive recognition. 7) The Southern Cherokee Nation was honored with an official proclamation indicating that they were recognized as an Indian Tribe by the late Governor John Y. Brown on December 31st, 1893. The Honorable Governor Ernie Fletcher did not sign that proclamation without having first checked it for historical accuracy. http://www.southerncherokeenation.net/govfletcher.htm . 8) Each state’s criteria for the recognition of Native American Indian Tribes are different and thus there is no universal standard to measure the value of an out of state Native American Indian tribe. To do so is demoralizing and only diminishes the collective self worth of all good Native American Indian People.

    Conclusion of facts: The Southern Cherokee Nation is a state recognized Indian tribe until such time as further criteria is established by the Kentucky State Legislature.

    Walk in Peace and Beauty, Buffaloheart

    On 3-19-07 User:74.138.62.77 made an edit to this page consisting of the following

    I have only a question to your statement, by your criteria then any tribe that was recognized as having been in the State of Kentucky and still exist is a State Recognized Tribe. Since my people the Shawnee by documented historical fact held most of Kentucky throughout the States recorded history, recognized as such on multiple historic web sites, and by your own words were recognized, we in fact have the same right to claim Kentucky State Recognition? My sources are as follows to the Shawnee's right to the same claim:

    1- Extract from "The Indian Tribes of North America" by John R. Swanton, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 145�1953, [726 pages�Smithsonian Institution], (pp. 229-230) 2- http://www.kcnaac.org/ 3- http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-203399 4- http://www.courier-journal.com/foryourinfo/112502/111802.html 5- http://aiac.state.al.us/PIQUA%20tribal%20history.htm by your own listing

    And just because you do not like a reply to a discussion, does not grant the right to delete that entry.

    Oginali,

    I thought you already said your piece?

    I have no quarrel with my Shawnee brothers and I have no personal criteria for the recognition of Indian tribes within the state of Kentucky. I merely presented the facts, as I know them. I do know that the Piqua Shawnee have official recognition in the state of Kentucky and they do have some reserve land apparently shared by a relatively small group of people with extended familial ties. Although small in number they have somehow managed to avoid total assimilation by the dominant white culture. I also know that at different times the Shawnee have been closely allied with the Cherokee against the Iroquois and the Catawba. Cherokees have been known as Shawnee and vice versa. However, I do not know the complete ethno-history of the Piqua Shawnee. However, The Piqua Shawnee are well represented on the KNAIC and the legislative task force. I do have a link to share with you about the Shawnee which I found to be very informative http://www.tolatsga.org/shaw.html .

    Additionally, I never meant to imply that Kentucky was “just a hunting ground” shared by different Native American tribes. I was actually trying to make a point otherwise. The white propagandist would have us all believe this myth, but the Cherokee, Shawnee and Chickasaw all had permanent settlements in Kentucky. For example, there are way too many people in southeastern Kentucky claiming to have Cherokee ancestry to believe otherwise. Recent archeological evidence in southeastern Kentucky has confirmed permanent Cherokee settlements were once thriving in the area. The near absence of Native Americans in Kentucky when the white settlers begin to arrive, in my estimation, was largely due to diseases brought in initially by the Spanish as early as 1540. Also in my estimation, the void was partially filled with displaced mixed blood Native Americans from the Tidewater Virginia area and tribes defeated by the Iroquois. Do I believe the surviving remnants of the Cherokee, Shawnee and Chickasaw deserve to be recognized by the State of Kentucky? Yes I do.

    Blessings, Yanssi

    PS – I did not delete anything off the talk page, but we were both cautioned about making unauthorized changes to the main article.


    On 3-19-07 User:74.138.62.77 made an edit to this page consisting of the following

    Brother I agree with you 100% on you last statement, I also believe the surviving remnants of the Cherokee, Shawnee and Chickasaw deserve to be recognized by the State of Kentucky? And yes there were 4 know peoples in Kentucky including the Shawnee and Cherokee. My family lived with the Shawnee, but most my blood is Cherokee, and I have documented this on both Cherokee and Shawnee rolls. I have no argument with this belief or with you. I wish the SCN all the luck in their endeavors, but many including myself find the statement on the main page to be a false claim and not justified by the presented documentation, it just does not add up to true State recognition as many tribes have earned and obtained, that is my only problem. I have also made no changes to the front page, but my last here was deleted, by whom I do not know. And I asked a question, which is a change in subject so a new peace if you must, that with the fact that other comments felt the need to further the issue prompted me to commented further instead of letting it rest. On this I make no further promise, but enough discussion on both our parts has been made, and enough energy lost. I know much about the SCN in Henderson and Native American affairs in the State of Kentucky, we will leave that we disagree on what State recognition is. You feel you have made you point and I have made mine. Since the main page is marked and people can see that it is in question and come here to decide for themselves is enough for me.

    Smoke and prayers

    3/21/07 - Hopefully the last response

    Oginali,

    We are “Original Principle People” and we should not have to work to earn the recognition we are already deserving of. Our birthright as Native Americans has always been one of sovereignty and freedom. I think many of us get a certain feeling of validation as Native Americans when we are recognized by a legislative jurisdiction. It is an old cliché but being Native American really is a matter of the heart. The problem is that some of us are living in poverty and having a Native American heart is not going to get the medical bills paid or even put one of our children through medical school. Recognition from the Executive branch is much like having a Native American heart in that it makes one feel good, but it still does not get our Elders in to see the doctor. Executive recognition is also cost effective for the host government and provides good public relations for politicians, but does little in the way of real help for our people. However, we as Southern Cherokee are thankful for what we do have, because we are that much closer to getting the help we so desperately need for the health and welfare of our Elders and children. Principle Chief Michael "Manfox" Buley and the Southern Cherokee Nation are not trying to moor a paddle boat on the banks of the Ohio River so that we can conduct illegal gaming. We are spiritual Native American people and we are true of heart http://www.southerncherokeenation.net/NA%20Heritage%20Commission.htm.

    I am also content to let the matter rest for now. I am glad we were able to find some common ground and remain respectful.

    From the heart of the Buffalo: Polmer “Buffaloheart” Burke


    PS – My response to your initial comment was also deleted. The moderator may have deleted both comments in an attempt to clean the main page.

    Kaweah Indian Nation[edit]

    I don't know what to do with this but it's related. It's a tribe with a loose geographic identity that was later invoked as part of a scam. Nonrecognized. don't know where to put this information in relation to this article.

    Kaweah Indian Nation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.74.133 (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

    They are already listed twice on the listing: once under Kansas and again under North Carolina. However, I will go ahead a wikify the entries to link to the stub article. CJLippert 13:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

    Wikipedia-recognized tribes?[edit]

    I created this page to give some place where Wikipedia can discuss Tribes that have not been recognized by the federal or state government. I mean no judgment on the legal validity of claims or more importantly on what a tribe is, what it takes to be a tribe, or what this is all about. This article is supposed to be for groups that for whatever reason simply did not get the government to recognize them. I also changed the Federally recognized tribe article to make clear that federal recognition is not what makes a tribe or nation, that is just a designation the US government makes for its own purposes. The same thing with state state recognition. It is important in terms of benefits and programs, opportunities, etc., but that is an external definition, and even there only for legal and political purposes.

    Unfortunately we have another problem / issue, which is that Wikipedia has its own standards for recognition. An article on any subject has to meet notability guidelines, which means that a very small group of people without any historical context or importance doesn't qualify. It also has to be verifialbe and have WP:RS reliable sources. That is the real problem. It means that in order to write an article or add material and not have it deleted, you have to find some third party source that has written about it in an objective way - a newspaper, book, etc., that is reliable and not self-interested.

    Indian nations do not get mentioned in the news much, which makes sourcing very difficult. Even more troubling, the reason the mainstream press doesn't write about them is often the same reason they don't get federal or state recognition either: sources are hard to find, proof is hard, the majority culture does not care about them, they have been oppressed or scattered, etc. I dont' see any good way around this but maybe this article can help. At least the rules here on Wikipedia are not designed to exclude. It is simply the best way to keep the encyclopedia trustworthy. There are invalid and even fake claims made about tribes, and about every subject on Wikipedia, so we can't just include everything that anyone wants to add.

    If you are from a tribe or you care about a tribe, the best thing to do to help Wikipedia is to find an article somewhere off Wikiepdia -- any article -- and post a citation to it to show that the tribe is a real one. If the tribe has a headquarters, or a petition, or even better a website, that is a good link too. Wikipedia frowns on email addresses but a website about a tribe is a good link. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

    I think we can get quite a bit of unrecognized tribes in the US listed here, even if they aren't notable, since this is basically a list and not an article about each of the non-notable unrecognized tribes. However, to prevent people from just making up a claim of a tribe, as you have already stressed, it has to be verifialbe and have WP:RS reliable sources. The State recognized tribes article also needs major clean-up since there are some now who are Federally recognized and a lot of unrecognized tribes mix into that list. CJLippert 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

    Choctaw Nation of Mississippi River Clan[edit]

    The reason this came up is that the below notice was added to the State recognized tribe article. It seems sincere, and important. But it's hard to figure out where it fits in Wikipedia. I did some quick google research and couldn't find a source. If this is for real, it would be shame if our rules mean that a tribe can't be mentioned here. Maybe someone with better google skills than me or some information can help. Thanks, Wikidemo 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Choctaw Nation of Mississippi River Clan- Soverign Nation that has, and continues to exist on Turtle Island "nothamerica". Members of this Federally, State and U.N. recognized Tribe, were scattered during the Choctaw Trail of Tears 1830 to 1833; and again in the early 1900's when the U.S. Federal Government declared that this Tribe, and these People did not exist. My Grandfather is still here... and I am still here....WE STILL EXIST! The U.S. government CANNOT determine wether a TRIBE or People exist or not. This to be determined by the Tribe or People themselves; according to U.N.law. I am Shaman RedHawk Choctaw Nation Mississippi River Clan, WE STILL EXIST! Aho! We encourage other "lost" or "scattered" members of this tribe to contact Tribal Headquarters: NAC.ChoctawMississippiRiverClan@yahoo.com

    Togeather We Are Reuniting the Sacred Circle of the Tree of Life! Aho!

    The thing is, wikipedia can create things, and perhaps this should be discouraged. If someone claims to belong to a group that doesn't have wide recognition, but they can point to a WP page about their group, it gives the group some credence, independent of any references, something that might influence a city council or something like that. And I'm afraid that isn't our job. What you say is true, if a citation can be found, even in a local weekly paper that isn't available online, then at least we can have a citation. Wikipedia has a lot of power, and if wikipedia recognizes something, it is important. I support wikipedia recognizing things which can be cited (your favorite obscure artist, for instance), as it enriches and personalizes the experience of editors and readers. But without any citation, I think we are overstepping bounds, especially when the issue is sensitive. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

    Southern California[edit]

    There are a few unrecognized tribes of descendants allegedly of Luiseno (the Temeku Rancheria of Temecula), Serrano (the Rancho San Timeteo of Calimesa), and Cahuilla (the San Cayetano band of Palm Desert) tribal origins fought for federal or state recognition. Often they are considered remnants of Californio or Spanish Californian origin, due to their Spanish surnames and Mexican cultural features they possessed (or legally called Latino).+ 71.102.53.48 (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

    Their genealogical and legal records are required for verification by federal or state authorities, and need to confirm they are Native American descendants. There are 3 others came to mind: The Las Palmas band of Cahuilla, the Western Apache community of the California Desert whom lived among the Cahuilla and the Mission Creek Indian Reservation of the Cahuilla, all located near Palm Springs. Mike D 26 (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

    In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

    • "mlist" :
      • {{cite web|url=http://www.manataka.org/page237.html|title=U.S. Federally Non-Recognized Tribes|}}
      • {{cite web|url=http://cooday8.tripod.com/landless-tlingits.htm|author=Jesse Cooday|title=http://cooday8.tripod.com/landless-tlingits.htm|accessdate=2007-08-29}}

    DumZiBoT (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    Fixed. mlist = manataka. cooday8 had the wrong ref tag. CJLippert (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Boldface[edit]

    Really should get rid of most boldfacing in article in accordance with WP:MOS, specifically: WP:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#BoldfaceStudent7 (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    But in this list and the list called State recognized tribes, the names listed are not just a list but they act as Definition lists, which according to the WP:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Boldface is an acceptable use of boldface. These groups identifying themselves as a "tribe" in general is not noteworthy to warrent an article for each and every one of them; however, they are worth noting on as a whole, where some do have more than just their name and what official source they appear, and that is where their titles act as a Definition list. CJLippert (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    Just removed this before reading your note. I did not deliberately ignore it. If I had seen it, I would not have proceeded. (I don't agree, but I would have held off. Sorry to seem precipitous). Student7 (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Latgawa[edit]

    I ran across this article today. Katr67 (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

    Not a bogus tribe, but as far as the US is concerned, they are extinct, mostly absorbed into other recognized tribes, but there is one group claiming to be the Latgawa tribe, but I cannot find any Indian Advocacy groups or any government organizations explicitly citing them. If they can't be referenced by a reliable source, they can't be listed in the list of unrecognized tribes. CJLippert (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, I wasn't saying the tribe itself was bogus, just the currrent claim to its legacy. I figured if it got deleted it could be recreated as a properly sourced article, but I didn't have the time to do it. Thanks for the cleanup! These seem to be the same folks listed in this article as "Confederated Tribes: Rogue, Table Rock & Associated Tribes".[1] I ran across some articles referencing some interesting business dealings as well. A search on "John Grey Eagle Newkirk" provides the background. Though not recognized, the group claiming to be the tribe seems to be somewhat notable, if slightly notorious... Katr67 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

    "Tanasi" groups[edit]

    Is Tanasi Council the same as the Tanasi Native American Group? -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

    Don't know. Will look around and see if they're the same or different with names being muddled together or distinctively different entities. No matter what, the list will be edited to reflect what I find. Thanks for noticing and asking. CJLippert (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    OK, this is what I've found:
    • Tanasi Council [of the Far Away Cherokee] is based out of Memphis, TN
    • Tanasi Native American Group is based out of Knoxville, TN
    So, the two entities are different. Now the "Tanasi Council" was tricky because I was getting a lot of hits for the Girl Scouts of Tanasi Council, but once putting in the full name, it was clear that the two entities in question were different. CJLippert (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

    Tribes that are part of recognized tribes[edit]

    Why are tribe such as the following included in this list?

    1. Alabama Tribal Town. Currently recognized only as part of the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma.
    2. Apehkv (Arbeka) Tribal Town. Currently recognized only as part of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
    3. Arapaho Tribe of Oklahoma.

    They are federally recognized; they are just part of a larger group. This is the situation of most large tribes - that smaller groups are included (Yuchis in Muscogee Creek Nation, Natchez in Cherokee Nation; Suhtai in Cheyenne-Arapaho tribes, etc.). Including federally recognized tribes in this list just confuses matters. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

    I pulled them since they were uncited anyway. The Shawnee Tribe has been independently recognized since 2000. I left the Yuchi, even though they are part of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation because they have actively sought independent federal recognition. Someone with a lot more knowledge about Minnesota tribes might review the Minnesota section. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
    The tribes that are not independently federally recognized were here because they by themselves are not eligible to receive services, and they qualify to receive services only as part of the larger group. There are caveats to this even with the federally recognized tribes! In the federally recognized tribes' case, only those who are the main entry may receive services from about 1/2 of the federal agencies (such as HUD, DOE, DOD, etc.), while all listed entities are eligible to receive services from the other 1/2 of federal agencies (such EPA, CDC, USDA, etc.) The ones who are considered part of another and not listed on the BIA's listing are not eligible to receive services directly... which is why they were listed here. Maybe a better solution would be to create another page or re-organize this page somehow? (Originally, if I recall (maybe faultily), state recognized tribes and unrecognized tribes were originally a listing of all non-federally recognized tribes, but the list became confusing, so it got split, likewise, we may need to do a similar thing here, but keep in mind, there are also state recognized tribes that are not independently recognized by the federal government, just as there are tribes that are not state recognized who are also not independently recognized by the federal government.) CJLippert (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    But how many federally recognized tribal governmental entities are amalgamations of different ethnic/cultural tribes? The majority of them, especially in the case of California rancherias, where a single federally recognized rancheria can easily include members of a half-dozen ethnically diverse tribes/bands. Including members of federally recognized tribes just confuses this list, especially if they aren't actively seeking independent federal recognition. The diverse groups that compose a single federally recognized tribal governmental entity are typically listed in that tribe's article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
    But here is a case in point: The Rice Lake Band of Mississippi Chippewa, who are recognized only as part of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, do not seek independent federal recognition, they do not have separate state recognition, but yet, economically, they make themselves separate from the rest of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe. If even with the amalgamation, if "historical component tribes/bands" still actively identify themselves as a separate entity, but they don't have direct federal or state recognition as that independent entity, then they should be listed here or a new list should be generated for these cases and listed there, as they won't qualify to be listed in the listing of federally recognized tribes per the BIA publishings in the FR, nor listed in the state recognized tribes/bands as they may not be recognized by the state as a separate entity either. CJLippert (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    That's why I didn't touch the Minnesota section because I don't know the political situation there. Ethnic/linguistic/cultural groups do not directly correspond to the political federally recognized tribes today; it's apples and oranges. Trying to list them all would be impossible and undesirable, as it confuse this list to the point of uselessness. For instance the Caddo (Caddo Nation of Oklahoma) and Wichita (Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie)) are both confederacies of many smaller tribes and even today, especially the elders know exactly whether they are Hasinai, Kadohadacho, etc. Susanville Rancheria includes Achomawi, Atsugewi, Maidu, Northern Paiute, and Washoe members. The Round Valley Indian Tribes include Achomawi, Cahto, Maidu, Pomo, Nomlaki, and Wailaki members. All the "Confederated Tribes" in the NW include several smaller tribes. If a group belongs to a federally recognized tribe, they shouldn't be listed here, unless they are seeking independent recognition. If you do want to start a new list, I'll help out. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

    SOL Opinion?[edit]

    The article has several references to a "SOL opinion" of a certain date. What does SOL stand for? Who (or what body) issues these opinions? I'm guessing that SOL stands for "Statue of Limitations" but I'm not sure and I don't know who issues the opinions. Including that information in the body of the article or an explanatory footnote would be helpful. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD 02:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)