Talk:Lumbee

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lumbee article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

United States: North Carolina Unassessed

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as High-importance).

Indigenous peoples of North America B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:NCFA

DISPUTED LUMBEE ORIGINS

Template:I move to change the class of this article to C until it reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. Many of the points made below demonstrate that this page is clearly slanted toward implications that the Lumbee are not Indian. In fact, that is much the dominant theme throughout, especially in the Lead. Many of the people that are the subject of this article find it particualrly disparaging that the Lead states the Lumbee are "African, European and perhaps Native American" especially when the sources cited for this POV are self-published, not peer-reviewed, and completely contrary to the vast majority of information about the topic. Jas392 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The view that the Lumbees are an Indian tribe is hotly disputed, as evidenced by President Bush's veto of federal legislation that would have granted them recognition as a tribe. I have re-written the opening paragraph to acknowledge both sides of this issue.

The Bush veto needs to cite a source, or else it will have to come out.Verklempt (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2008 (U

Where is the fact that the Lumbee were acknowledged by both houses of Congress and the bill was signed into law by the president in 1957(Eisenhour?) BTW, this law was enacted by both houses of congress, and not just the house as is mistakenly stated in the article. This year our recognition bill has passed the house of representatives and senate committee. Also 1) why isn't the information presented by Bobby Hurt about Heinegg and Demarce in here. 2) Why isn't the truth about the Free Person of Color information presented at the beginning? The George Lowrie quote in 1864 is a documented quote by the honorable OM McPherson. Why isn't it in the article? 3)Why isn't the fact that Swanton, Sider, Campisi, and all the other antrholopologists/ historians mentioned? 4) Isn't this article supposed to be a fair represetation of both sides of the issue? 5) Verklempt, I have written to the wikipedia board and hope to write to whoever will listen because your one sided version of the truth is a travesty of justice to the Lumbee people. You refuse to listen to anyone else and take it upon yourself to write whatever you see fit. 8 May 2008 Alumbo

I agree that the Heinegg and Demarce work is problematic. The work is presented here as scholarship when in fact it is neither academic nor peer reviewed. In the case of my own genealogy, I could detect many errors and inconsistencies. Here is one example: in one part of Heinegg's work, he places Sara Kearsey as married to one Lowry male. In another section, he has her married to another Lowry male. I had a professional historian point out this inconsistency to him and he corrected it on his website without acknowledgement. You can verify this by looking at his site through the 'wayback machine' internet archive and compare one of the older versions with the current version of the website. If that was the only inconsistency, he could be forgiven, perhaps. However, there are many more as Mr. Hurt has pointed out, and as I have also detected from my knowledge of my own family history. One quickly comes to realize that this is sloppy work, and much of it was apparently made up as he went along.David F Lowry (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Heinegg book was certainly peer-reviewed, as it won a major genealogy award from a national society. It has also been reviewed favorably by national historians whose own research has been in similar time frames. They seem to be satisfied that he has made careful and thorough use of a variety of primary sources in colonial and later records. --Parkwells (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and I have different notions of peer-review. A self-published book does not constitute peer-review, neither does winning an award from a society, especially when a number of society members requested withdrawal of Heinegg's award. Furthermore, the work has been entirely ignored by anthropologists, i.e. real scientists. Genealogy is not rigorous enough to be taken seriously. Peer review consists of rigorous review of the work before it ever sees the light of day.David F Lowry (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I used too general a term. I have seen the work recommended by historians. Heinegg has never suggested this was a book of anthropology or science. It is a history, documentation of families from historic records.--Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I move to strike Template:Ancestors of today's Lumbee tribe were recorded in the 1790 census as "free persons of color", indicating uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and perhaps Native American blood from the Lead. Jas392 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also move to strike the entire last paragraph of the lead {{Genealogical researchers have documented that ancestors of many Lumbee families were part of a tri-racial isolate group of predominantly African and European ethnicity, originating among individuals free in colonial Virginia. Most such free African Americans were descended from unions between white women, servant or free, and African men, servant, free or enslaved. Although relationships across racial lines were tolerated among the servant class in early colonial days, Virginia officials later moved to outlaw them. In the mid-1700s, the free colored families of Virginia migrated together, with other European colonists, into the interior of North Carolina. Researcher Paul Heinegg noted numerous families identified as mulattos, many with characteristically Lumbee names, in the 1768-1770 tax lists for Bladen County, from which Robeson County was formed. Heinegg found no nuclear families listed as Indian. In the 1790-1800 censuses, all free people of color were listed under "other free".[3]}} Jas392 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even more logical inconsistencies in Heinegg’s “work”:

In the Lowry chapter, he writes;

The Kersey family were not Tuscarora Indians. They were a mixed-race family descended from Peter Kersey, "a Negroe" living in Surry County, Virginia, on 4 March 1678 when the court ordered him to return his son John Kersy to the estate of Judith Parker, deceased [Haun, Surry County Court Records, III:240].

Yet, in the Kersey chapter, ascent of Sally Kersey to Peter the Negroe is presented as merely a possibility, not a certainty;

Thomas' children may have been i. Ester Cairsey who was listed as a harborer of the "free Negors and Mullatus" who were living in what was then Bladen County on 13 October 1773 [G.A. 1773, Box 7]. ii. Sarah/Sally, born say 1750, supposed to have married James Lowry in Franklin County before 1769 when Lowry moved to Robeson County. She was said to have been a "half-breed Tuscarora Indian woman" [Blu, The Lowrie History, 5].

In the Lowry chapter, he writes;

Polly Cumbo was not Portuguese. She was a descendant of Emanuel Cumbo, a "Negro" who was granted a patent for 50 acres in James City County on 18 April 1667 [Patent 6:39].

Yet, in the Cumbo chapter, he presents the ascent of Polly Cumbo to Emanuel as not a certainty but merely a possibility;

Emanuell1 Cambow, "Negro," was granted a patent for 50 acres in James City County on 18 April 1667 [Patents 6:39]. He may have been the "Mulata named Manuel" who was adjudged to be a Christian servant by the Virginia Assembly in September 1644. He was ordered to serve as other Christian servants and freed in September 1665 [VMHB XVII:232]. He was probably the father of ….

Emphasis mine.

Mr. Hurt has already pointed out some of this. Heinegg has most certainly NOT traced Lumbee ancestors to mixed-race unions in Colonial Virginia beyond a reasonable doubt. He presents possibilities on the one hand, and he converts these possibilities to certainties on the other hand. This cleverly concealed presentation of speculation as fact is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.David F Lowry (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What some take to be inconsistencies in language was probably Heinegg's way to accommodate differences in spelling and other factors. But we're all guessing. An unusual name like Cumbo was not common, and other reviewers, including the genealogical society that gave his work a major award, do not seem to believe he stretched too far in determining linkages between some generations even though there were not birth certificates available, for instance.--Parkwells (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that in addition to the flawed Heinegg research, the "Seltzer" study is judged by present day anthropologist to be a joke. In 1936, Carl Seltzer measured the teeth, foreheads, cheekbones, etc. of hundreds of Lumbee people to help the BIA make a determination who was eligible, under the Indian Reorganization Act, for federal benefits. If these measurements fell within certain parameters, the individual was judged to be 1/2 or more Native blood. The flaws in this study became immediately apparent, when it was found that full brothers and sisters were "measured" in the study. In many cases, one of the siblings tested positively while the other did not (Hmmmm!) How could one sibling "make it" and the other "could not"? Seltzer also failed to recognize that these "measurements" differ from tribe to tribe. Where did he obtain his norms? A question I had with the Pollitzer study done in 1972, is how could Pollitzer ascertain the NA blood quantum without the benefit of DNA analysis? Did he go back to the Lumbee communtiy to measure some more eyes, teeth, and foreheads? Maybe he consulted palm reading specialists to help him break down the racial percentages?! Alumbo 8 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.34.231 (talk)

Whoever wrote about the Seltzer and Pollitzer studies (or another editor) added that neither study is considered reliable for determining ancestry. I thought they must have been acknowledged in the article as early studies because of other people who would point to them and say, see, so-and-so proved in 1936 (or 1972) that Lumbees were Indian. So the studies and conclusions were mentioned, but also noted as flawed and now abandoned.--Parkwells (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Seltzer study is not abandoned. It is a core piece of the "Original 22" faction's rhetoric. Thus it is still historically relevant today, nonsense though it may be.Verklempt (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 22 came from a, let's call it, "high standard" test and only examined 200 some odd individuals when there were several thousand at the time. Regardless, the half-blood study was only performed for purposes of organizing under the Indian Reorganization Act, which only required 10 half-bloods. Unfortunately the tribe was split into two factions over the proper name, so efforts to organize under the IRA failed. Later, the 1956 Act put an end to being able to organize under the IRA. Jas392 (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jamie Oxendine concerning his Indian costume

Hello. This is Jamie K. Oxendine. Why am I dressed in more Creek Style Clothing? There are many reasons and each one would take up a considerable amount of space here. I am more than willing and happy to address each one with anyone that would like to contact me privately. Here some starters:

1. I took many years to re-do the entire family genealogy several years ago when the Lumbee Tribe was being re-structured due to the Federal Court Order and we found trace elements of other South East Tribes in the family line. 2. I have always been attracted to Southeast Woodland Clothing and most particular that of the time period after the American Revolution and before the Pre-Civil War Era. Among scholars of the South East Woodland Area this is often referred to as the Classical South Eastern Woodland Clothing Period of 1790 - 1840. 3. I did not want to dress in the clothing of the Powwow especially the Modern Powwow since the middle 20th Century (WWII to present day). There is nothing wrong with that dress and it is all well done and very beautiful. But that clothing is not South Eastern. Most of the “Powwow” clothing as many know is that of the people of the Great Plains with some aspects from the North East Woodlands and the Great Lakes Woodlands. Examples: The Men’s Northern Traditional Clothing is from the Northern Plains. The Men’s Southern Straight Clothing is from the Southern Plains. The Men’s Fancy Dance Clothing, Men’s Grass Dance Clothing and Men’s Chicken Dance Clothing are from the Central Plains (many argue of the exact location of each so the term Central Plains is used here to hopefully avoid any arguments or upsetting some about saying they are definitely from a specific area). 4. As many well know, the Lumbee have roots in both the North East Nations and the South East Nations as we have ancestors among both the cultural lines of where the North East Woodland Culture and the South East Woodland Culture meet (before European Contact and after European Contact). Our ancestors had dress that was influenced by both North East Woodland and South East Woodland ideas and concepts before Contact and this continued after Contact. I chose to use this and you can see some of both in my clothing. 5. True South East Clothing before Contact and right at Contact for the summer (even late summer) would be very sparse - Men’s Clothing was very bare (almost naked) for the summer months and I am sure that many would not want to see that at the Grand Opening of the National Museum of the American Indian (although there were several representatives of the Pacific Peoples dressed in accurate clothing of Contact and before Contact at the NAMI Celebration). Also that type of historically accurate South Eastern clothing would not be accepted at many events except perhaps a very accurate historical event like of the time before and at White Contact. I am modest and chose not to dress in the true South East Clothing of the time of Contact and Post-Contact. 6. It is well known that once the Lumbee were well established in the interior of what became the “Carolinas” they had been well influenced and accepting of White Contact Clothing. This was as early as the late Elizabethan Period and the start of the Colonial Period. The Lumbee along with other Tribes in the area were know to have worn White style clothing and even have late Middle English words in their vocabulary. I chose not to use this dress as it is generally typical Colonial Dress and Pioneer Dress.

I could go on and on but this is already a plethora of information on why I am dressed as I am in the picture. I do have several different outfits that fit the South Eastern Classical Time Period. They are all different and one can find a variety of things that may point to a particular Nation. I also have outfits that fit the North East Woodlands right around the time of the French & Indian War and the American Revolution. As I enjoy all aspects of the Arts & Crafts of our beautiful Native American Culture, I have also made outfits that are more indicative of the Great Plains and the Great Lakes. 4.159.159.81 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Jamie K. Oxendine (Lumbee/Creek), April 25, 2008[reply]

Disputed Origins

Let's honestly present the dispute over Lumbee origins. The 1790 census pretty conclusively shows that the "Lumbee" are originally descended from mixed race unions of European colonists and African slaves. The theory of Indian origin was created after the Civil War when the North Carolina authorities were trying to stop violence between the "coloreds" of Robeson County and the Klan. It is likely that a few scattered Indians joined the colored settlements of Robeson County, but the "Lumbee" are not a tribe. In fact, the "Lumbee" name was made up in the 1950s.

As I understand it, Heinegg traced back from individuals in the 1790 census to identify in other records that their ancestors were usually white English women, free or indentured servant, and African or African-american men, free, slave or indentured servant. Court and land deed records were often quite detailed.--Parkwells (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)--Parkwells (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's honestly present Heinegg's work. It rests on the premise that the census and other records accurately reflect the race of the individual. This is naive. From what I can tell, the individual had little control over what was written on the record in those times, eg. http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7ECAP/POCA/POC_law.html All Best, D.F. Lowry

Heinegg quotes from many different types of early records in which other races are named, for instance, early records in VA noting Indian individuals from East Asia, at least one of whom first lived in London; the 1768 tax list for Bladen Co, NC, in which Thomas Britt was listed as Indian. He notes that no nuclear families were listed as Indian in 1768 in Bladen Co. He quotes from early records that document freeing of some slaves in the mid-17th century, for instance, and/or court cases against specifically named white women who bore children who were mixed race. This is the documentation of origin of many multiracial families, with descendants by the same names who later went to NC. He acknowledges that in the later censuses mulatto may have referred to people of mixed African and Native American ancestry. It's an overstatement to say that all such records were wrong, and that all free people of color were really unrecognized Indians.--Parkwells (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you cite a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. Heinegg states that Thomas Britt was listed as an Indian in that tax list, but if you actually go look at the damn thing, it is Britt's servant who is being mentioned as being Indian. There are other cases where he lists documents that other folks cannot even find to be extant!David F Lowry (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, Heinegg cites Byrd's transcription of the Britt document, not the orginal source. What documents does Heinegg cite that you can't find? I've run into that problem with Evans (many times), but never with Heinegg.Verklempt (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This must not constitute a part of the extensive research in primary source documents, that and Norment.David F Lowry (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow your train of thought here. Is your complaint that some of Heinegg's work is based on secondary sources? That is really not much of a criticism. Usually William Byrd is a very good transcriber.Verklempt (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't like seeing a work full of errors and logical inconsistencies given such a degree of credibility in this article. I have pointed out several inconsistencies, Mr. Hurt has pointed out several. It is very personal to me and I will no longer edit on the main-page as it constitutes conflict of interest. In that regard, I appreciate you folks allowing me to edit there in the past. He gets the Lowry genealogy wrong, Norment gets it wrong, the Lumbee Tribe may or may not know our genealogy, I do not know. For me, this is not about the Lumbee Tribe. I really will not go into it beyond that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David F Lowry (talk • contribs) 21:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of errors in Heinegg's work, then I suggest you inform him. I have done so in the past, and he always promptly corrects his work, as soon as he is able to consult the source you give him. All researchers make errors. It is the willingness to continually improve and refine your work that distinguishes the best researchers. Heinegg has proven his value in this regard.Verklempt (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Lumbee

Have you all ever heard of Tatanka...he wrestled in the WWF back in the 1990's...his real name is Chris Chavis.

I am moving the following to the discussion section until a more detailed account of famous Lumbee can be compiled. It is sort of irrelevant in such a short stub-like article:

"An example of a Lumbee who has made himself known in 'show business' is Anybody Killa, (Native Rapper for Psychopathic Rapper, both solo and a part of the sub-group project, Dark Lotus)".

Perhaps it would be better to more fully explain the Lumbee, those of you experts out there, than simply name one or two. --Tuttobene 02:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kelvin Sampson, head coach of the University of Oklahoma men's basketball team, is a Lumbee. He guided the Sooners to an appearance in the Final Four of the men's NCAA basketball tournament in 2002. --libertysooner

Clint Lowery (Formerly of Sevendust) and Corey Lowery of the Band, Dark New Day --lumbeecheraw75

DNA

With modern advances in DNA and genealogy, would it not be possible to take samples from present day Lumbee and Lost Colony relatives from European family trees? By doing this the controversy might be settled, or only extended.

Here is a link to a recent story on the approach of using DNA and genealogy together:[1]

Samples from the Lumbee should be easy enough. Does anyone know if there are any identified relatives of the lost colony, that could be traced for a sample?

--68.255.239.192 22:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Best I could find was a link on archaelogy findings http://www.lost-colony.com/Buxtoncrew.html I did change the article a bit since it said there was no evidence while even the article on Roanoke Island mentions the evidence... mcm

discrepancy regarding the klansmen description

There is a discrepancy regarding the klansmen description on this page and that on the page for 1958. One says there was 5,000 klansman, the other that there were a handful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958: January 18 - Armed Lumbee Native Americans chased off an estimated 5,000 Klansmen and supporters at the town of Maxton, North Carolina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumbee: On January 18, 1958, armed Lumbee Native Americans chased off a handful of Klansmen and supporters led by grand wizard Catfish Cole at the town of Maxton, North Carolina.

cleaning up a little

I hope no one minds if I just clean up the prose a little. I wont change or add information at the moment, though I hope to come back and do that too eventually. --Elizabeth of North Carolina 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbee v. KKK battle

User:Tom by the Lumbee River, what is your source on the KKK and Lumbee numbers (and how heavily each side was armed) and the name of the KKK leader? Wadoli Itse 19:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Overlooks a Broad Corpus of Contrary Sources

This article is clearly biased towards the "Lumbee" position. Researchers should make reference to articles such as: Houghton, Richard H., III. “The Lumbee: ‘not a tribe.’ ” The Nation 257.21 (20 December 1993): 750 (Houghton was Counsel on Native American Affairs of the US House of Representatives from 1989 to 1994). For a full, academic treatment of the argument that the "Lumbee" do not qualify for federal recognition, see the dissenting views in: "U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources," Report Together with Dissenting Views to Accompany H.R. 334, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., 14 October 1993, H. Rpt. 290."

- I don't see how two documents constitute a "broad corpus," but I do agree with you that dissenting views should be in here. Will you please summarize what is contained in these documents, instead of just citing them?Verklempt 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Majority opinions are more authoritative than dissenting views.Template:The majority in H.R. Report 103-290 establishes that congressional hearings and studies since 1910 "have consistently concluded that the Lumbees were a self-governing, independent Indian community, descended from Siouan tribes such as the Cheraw." As for whatever is meant by "not qualifying for federal recognition," I'll take that to mean what the dissent in the Report was arguing for. But let's try to clean it up a bit by agreeing that Template:In 1989, the Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs determined that the Lumbee Tribe is ineligible for administrative recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs federal acknowledgment process due to the 1956 Lumbee Act.Further, Template:Lumbee leaders do not wish to proceed through the Bureau's process, because it has been generally regarded as an unworkable process. See United States Government Accountability Office Testimony (GAO-02-415T: More Consistent and Timely Tribal Recognition Process Needed; 2/7/2002)(GAO-02-936T: Basis for BIA's Tribal Recognition Decisions Is Not Always Clear; 9/17/2002)(GAO-05-347T: Timeliness of the Tribal Recognition Process Has Improved, but It Will Take Years to Clear the Existing Backlog of Petitions; 2/10/2005) and GAO Report (GAO-02-49: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recogntion Process; 11/2001); also see U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Hearing on Recommendations for Improving the Federal Acknowledgment Process (4/24/2008) where Senator Byron Dorgan, Chairman of the Committee, stated that "Some tribes are waiting twenty, thirty years [to be recognized], and that’s not right….there seems to me to be an unfairness in the system, and this is a serious problem we need to correct.” Template:The dissenting views' position was that the Lumbee should go through the Bureau's federal acknowledgement process anyway. Jas392 (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

User:68.210.195.80, I appreciate that you are trying to improve the article, but you deleted several paragraphs of properly sourced material. If you wish to improve the article, don't do it deleting what's already there. I don't have time right now to go back through all your edits, so I reverted to restore the removed information.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Article Tag

Of course, we are all intellectually challenged. Even the editor who goes by the name 71.255.218.156. What this entity fails to recognize is that the version of this article that is posted now is so radically different from a version that was posted several months ago, that this alone raises a red flag. If the edits since May 2006 were as extensively cited as the previous material, 71.255.218.156 could make a case for a balanced revision of the article. But this is not the case. In all fairness, until 71.255.218.156 and other editors can successfully reincorporate and respond to the germane and extensive deleted material, the tag "Disputed Article" really does need to stand. Sloppy revisions of this kind is what makes Wikipedia both suspect AND a terrific albeit negative teaching tool for university profs. In explaining to history majors "what not to do" in my history writing seminar, I will be using this article as one of many "bad history" examples to be found on wikipedia, and why, as a matter of university policy, students are not permitted to resort to or cite wikipedia articles.Gallay 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I deleted much of the older article. Why? Because it was POV, unsourced, and because the article exceeds the WP size recommendations. If you, Gallay, have a specific grievance, bring it forward here for negotiation. Your complaint above is too vague to be constructive.Verklempt 21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would bet the earlier version was much better than this piece of propaganda. The current version is definitely POV and racist. I have voiced my views and so far nothing has been done to remedy this. What gives this dude the right to take it upon himself to change an entire artice when even peons like me can see the flaws? Why are only certain people allocated the title of Wikipedia gods while the rest of us who do not have the power to change the article, have to suffer the consequences? The present article also has much POV with such vague statements as ... broad corpus of evidence to support that the Lumbee tribe are not eligible for federal recognition. And, there is no evidence to support the claim of being Native American. This article contradicts itself because later it points out the evidence that the BIA have determined on at least 8 occasions/visits that were are a Native American tribe. Swanton, Sider, Campisi, and other anthropologists, have presented strong proof of our Cheraw/Eastern Siouan heritage. Verklempt, can we have a bit of coffee talk? Have you ever been to Robeson County? Have you spent any time with the Lumbee people? Its like me popping up and saying I'm an expert and will write books about the culture of Java. If I am not part of that culture, I could never claim to be an expert. Me? I'm an enrolled member of the Lumbee tribe and am a direct descendant of King Robert Locklear, chief of the Cheraw nation. My grandfather and many other Lumbees before the 1970's were denied many rights of "WHITE" individuals. But, my grandfather and many other Lumbee fought their whole lives to be viewed with dignity and respect as Native people. Wikipedia is viewed by perhaps thousands of people a day. Its unfortunate that the Lumbee not only have to fight for their rights, but wage a PR battle about misinformation presented about us in media such as this. I also dispute this article. I will revise and respond in the future. Signed Arvis Boughman, author Herbal Remedies of the Lumbee Indians, McFarland Publishing, 2003.

- Specific examples can be discussed on this talk page, and acceptable revisions worked out. I agree with you about the "broad corpus" statement. I requested that the editor who wrote that clarify his statement, but he hasn't yet. But beyond that, vague, sweeping complaints do not constitute constructive criticism. I disagree that there is strong proof of Cheraw ancestry. Sider and Campisi are not objective observers. They were paid by the Lumbee tribe to help obtain federal recognition. Swanton was making a wild guess, based on a few days of superficial research in encyclopedias.Verklempt 04:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verk, can you cite any sources discrediting Swanton's work here on Lumbee? Otherwise Swanton's assessment will have to stand, because this violates the WP:OR policy. Jas392 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of research are you citing, Verklempt, about Swanton et al. being encyclopedic anthropologists. Are you telling me respected anthropologists such as Swanton and Sider conducted their research by reading the encyclopedia? I'm sure the individuals at the BIA and Smithsonian would love to hear about this discovery. Please. Aside from that, Sider and Campisi conducted their research long before the Lumbee approached them as possible witnesses for the Lumbee federal recognition act. By the way, thanks for support on the "broad corpus statement". There's many other accusations/statements that need to be "fixed" in this narrative. Arvis

- You can read Swanton's research notes in his collection at the NAA in Suitland, MD. His Lumbee folder is very thin, and contains mainly notes from the various books he consulted. His only primary source was the census, which cannot prove Cheraw ancestry. Sider was working as a political activist since he first arrived in Robeson, according to his own writing. I find his research unreliable, because he hides inconvenient data. For example when Sider reported the story of Preston Locklear's racist abuse of his own kin, Sider left out the names. Sider gives some unfounded speculation about the Lumbee Jones family being related to an Indian guy in SC near the Georgia border. Meanwhile, Sider doesn't report that the Lumbee Jones family descends from slaves in Anson County, NC. This kind of thing makes me skeptical of Sider. Can you tell me how Campisi was involved with Lumbees before the petition drive? My understanding is that he makes his living by consulting for unrecognized tribes. He's done a lot of them, and told a lot of whoppers in the process.Verklempt 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Swanton's research on the "Croatan" (1933) included maps (Herbert)and newspaper articles (SC gazette). His rough notes about Lumbee surnames and oral history disprove your shoddy inadequate research assertions about Swanton. You are also mistaken about only census information being used. Before Swanton, OM McPherson in Indians of North Carolina: Letter from the Secretary of the Interior 1914 assumed that the the Indians living in the Lumbee River basin were amalgamated with the Cheraw. Ethel Stephens Arnett, historian and author The Saura (Cheraw)and Keyauwee Indians in the Land that Became. . . 1975 also supports this assertion. Finally, Frank G. Speck (anthropologist), in regards to oral history, in his article The Catawba Nation and Its Neighbors (1939) interviews the last Catawba language native speaker,Margaret Brown, she states that the Croatans were once part of the Catawba tribe but left to avoid the plague (smallpox). She is referring to the Cheraw which also are the forebearers of many modern day Catawba. This fact is also confirmed by Lumbee oral history. BTW where is the backup for your Jones' family assertion? In 1831, right before the Cherokee removal it was North Carolina law that a free Negro OR (I repeat OR again) a free person of color who is convicted of an offense . . . could be hired out. This law led to the tied mule incidents. The majority of all Native Americans remaining N.C. in the 1830's were misclassified as free persons of color in 1831. BTW, Sider as well as Campisi are well respected in the academic community. Are you? Vernon Cooper (Lumbee healer), the Chavis family, and the Locklear family etc. trace their lineage back to Marlboro County, South Carolina when the Cheraw sold their land and moved into Robeson County. Your accusations concerning Campisi are again unsubstantiated as is much of this article. Tell me what other group of people than Native Americans have to substantiate their background. Arvis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.149.228.13 (talk • contribs) Put four tilde makrs to sign your Wikipedia name properly.
- You can research the Jones family's slave history in Anson Co records. I've never seen any documentation of a "tied mule incident". This seems to be an invention of Sider's, a story he heard that he never bothered to substantiate. That's another reason to be careful in taking him at face value. I'm not sure what your grievance is with this article. You haven't pointed out any specific errors in the article itself.Verklempt 16:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - How many Jones' are there in the U.S., Verklempt, millions maybe? IF YOU ARE THE ONE THROWING OUT FALSE ASSERTIONS, HAVE THE DECENCY TO BACK THEM UP. IT'S NOT MY RESPONSBILITY TO RESEARCH YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE JONES FAMILY. IT SHOULD BE YOUR JOB, MR./MRS. "I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CHANGE THE WHOLE ORIGINAL ARTICLE BECAUSE I FEEL I AM THE ONLY LUMBEE EXPERT IN THE ENTIRE WORLD" person. My great Aunt Mirilda Hardin was one victim of the tied mule incidents. The law enforcement officials took all of her land. I have several grievanaces with this article: 1) the broad corpus statement which we've already discussed 2) The statement, "While some SMALL degree of Indian ancestory is plausible. . ." 3) The inaccurate information presented by Heinegg and DeMarce 3) The omission that all remaining Native Americans after removal were misclassified as "free persons of color" 4) The blanket statement in the first paragraph that makes it sound like all Lumbee are a mixture of three races. Eastern Native Peoples bore the first brunt of the European onslaught and yes even among the Cherokee and Seminole there is some "race mixing". Yes there is some European and perhaps a bit of African American blood in some Lumbee. But, I don't think its fair to lump us all in one basket. Arvis

- We can document many government takings of land by courts for non-payment of taxes or other court costs. But I've never seen a single "tied mule" case documented. (2) I don't see a problem with the "plausible" sentence. You're not arging that Indian ancestry is implausible, so where's the problem? (3a) You don't say what Heinegg and Demarce have written that's inaccurate. These two authors hew much closer to the historical data than any other writer on the topic. (3b) Your claim here is simply incorrect, the Catawba and Cherokee tribes being two local examples to the contrary. (4) I agree with your concern about generalization, but to say that all Lumbees have Indian ancestry would also be an over-generalization. It seems to me that the current version is a reaonable statement of the historical facts.Verklempt 20:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would also be a violation of the WP:OR policy, Verk. Jas392 (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Do you think that in corrupt Robeson County land or law enforcement records would state outright that land was taken because of a contrived incident of a stolen mule, hog, or chickens, etc.? I'm sure politically correct terms such as tax debt etc. would be used in the official records. If you know anything about Robeson County, you would know that coverup and corruption, especially by law enforcement officials, was the name of the game. So my part of my "argiement (sic.)" on the "plausible" sentence deals also with the word "SOME" and "SMALL." The Lumbee, presently on the tribal rolls, have to prove their descent from an individual on the pre-1900 documentation. The Lumbee, are cousins, tribally speaking, of the Catawba and Waccamaw-Siouan. In any discussion about southeastern ethnology, it is not only unfair but discriminatory to single out one group for ridicule. If you are talking about multi-racial Native Americans, then the "argiements" do apply to the Cherokee and the Catawba. I have worked among the Eastern Band for the past three years and observed the racial characteristics. So, my take on this truth would be "reonable" (sic.). I disagree about with Heinegg and Demarce's statement pertaining to how the Lumbee are the result of the union between African American and European American. Some Lumbees may have migrated down the great Native American trading road between Virginia and Charleston, SC. Robert Brown, great grandson of Margaret Brown (Catawba), points out Robeson County was mid-way on this trading path and it would be a logical deduction that Siouan and some other Native refugee groups would settle in the shelter of the Lumbee River swamps. I submit that in no way shape or form can Heinegg and Demarce's shoddy and inadequate research prove the Lumbees were the result of of African American and European American unions. The surnames assertion by them is refuted by the fact that the names they mention are common names found in a large number over tidewater Virginia and eastern NC. Where is your documentation negating the fact that "all Lumbees have Indian ancestry." I don't understand what your problem is with the Lumbees. I won't even begin to speculate. However, I stand by my original assertion that this article is HOGWASH and highly disputed. If WIKIPEDIA really wants to put in an unbiased/quality article about the Lumbee, WIKIPEDIA needs to seek permission to copy the WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA's article on the Lumbee. The World Book article contains no racial slurs, opinion statements, and is factually based unlike this piece of garbage. I AGAIN DISPUTE THIS ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yanire kida ya (See you down the road in the Lumbee trad lang.)

                               Arvis

- I don't see why we should throw out Heinegg and Demarce's research just because you don't like their conclusions. They have established the genealogical linkages to the extent the data permit, and in many cases their arguments are overwhelming. Reasonable people may object to one of Heinegg's genealogical links here and there, but the bulk of his work is nearly undeniable. There is no competing genealogy on the table. Even if there were, that would not justify removing any mention of such an established and honored work from this article.

I am detecting a whiff of the internalized racism that is so common among people who insist on vigorously denying any African or slave ancestry. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Lumbee ancestors are described as black, negro, colored, free people of color, etc., in every record they created prior to 1885. They also self-identified as one or the other of these terms in all of these pre-85 records. This is exactly why there is a controversy here. It's because there is a contradiction between how the earlier generations identified, and the generations since 1885. There is no such contradiction in the Catawba and Cherokee histories. If Lumbees were an Indian tribe prior to 1885, you'd think someone would have noticed, and that evidence would exist. It exists for the Catawbas and Cherokees.Verklempt 01:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Catawbas are a SOUTH Carolina tribe. Most remaining Cherokees were identified by the state as "free persons of color" That's my arguement. I've heard our elders state that there ancestors were afraid because of threatened execution of beatings to speak their language, hold their dances, and in any way/shape/form celebrate our culture. It wasn't cool to be Indian in the 19th century. Arvis

- Just a few days ago you were claiming kinship to the Catawbas, and now you seem to be arguing that they are irrelevant because they live across the state line, only about a hundred miles or so away. That's silly. They are still a counter example to your false contention that all Indians were regasrded as FPC. Your claim that most Cherokees were FPCs is simply false. There is no evidence to support this, and all of the historical works on the Cherokees contradict your assertion. The Catawbas and Cherokees never had to hide their identity, so why should anyone believe that the Lumbee ancestors did? Are you saying that the Lumbee ancestors lacked the courage that the Cherokees and Catawbas had? I don't believe that.Verklempt 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You miss my point entirely. In the 1830's most remaining Native Americans in NORTH CAROLINA were misclassified as free persons of color. I don't know about South Carolina. Verklempt, our people have never lacked courage, but in the 18th and 19th centuries, survival was the name of the game for Native people in the southeast. Believe what you will. But, with entire tribes being wiped off the face of the map during this time period (i. e. Wateree, Cape Fear, Sugaree, Saxapahaw, Waxhaw, Tutelo, Mattamuskeet, etc.),and over 80% of North Carolina native peoples exterminated, hiding in a swamps, mountainous areas,and in fact hiding your identity was not only smart but necessary. Even members of the Cherokee began dressing as Europeans, owning slaves,and operating as much like individuals of the Euro-centric society as possible. Another note about the Cherokee. In the early 1900's the Eastern Band planned to disband. The tribe decided to divide the 56,000 acre Qualla Boundary property among the individual tribal members. A final census was taken but Congress permanently postponed the land division because members of Eastern Band claimed that over 1000 of the 3000 (@) enumerated in the final census tribal were not Cherokee (five dollar Indians). Today, there are over 13,000 enrolled Eastern Band members. Many of these descended from the 1000+ who paid to get their names on the rolls. BTW the same facts apply to the Western Cherokee whose rolls number in excess of 250,000.(New Geography of North Carolina, Sharp Publishing, Swain County, 1930)

Arvis

- - Saying something repeatedly does not make it true. Your claim that NC reclassified Indians as FPCs cannot be substantiated. It never happened to the Cherokees. You have no evidence of it happening to anyone else in NC. If it were true, then there would be evidence of those tribes living in NC prior to the 1830s. But there is none. Lumbee ancestors are repeatedly described as negroes, black, FPC, etc. in all records prior to 1830, not to mention 1885. Why do you object to any mention of this simple historical fact in this article?Verklempt 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Who removed the disputed article tag? Nothing has been resolved!! The article is the same. Is Wikipedia going

to settle for this bunch of nonsense? If so, I will have lost all faith in this so-called encyclopedia. BTW, flag is attractive, showing the Lumbee gentleman in Eastern Siouan tribal regalia. However, that is not our tribal flag. See the Lumbee website. Arvis

You haven't attempted to negotiate a workable resolution to your complaints. Instead, you vandalize the article by removing passages that you disagree with, even though they are well-documented. It's not clear to me that there is any real intellectual dispute here to be resolved.Verklempt 18:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERKLEMPT, I HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED TO NEGOTIATE A WORKABLE RESOLUTION. I VANDALIZE THE ARTICLE BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE READ THIS AND BELIEVE THIS HOGWASH. I HAVE OFFERED DOCUMENTATION FOR MY SIDE. WHY AREN'T THESE VIEWS PRESENTED IN THE ARTICLE? DO YOU HAVE THE POWER TO REMOVE THE DISPUTED TAG? THE ONLY TRUTH I SEE HERE IS YOUR NARROW-MINDED EGOTISTICAL VIEW OF IT. THERE IS CERTAININLY AN INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT HERE. I DISPUTE THIS ARTICLE. WILL WIKIPEDIA DECLINE TO PRINT BOTH SIDES OR SETTLE FOR MR. SNOOTY VERKLEMPT'S NARROW VERSION OF IT. 20 September 2006 ARVIS

It's not clear to me what views you want added. Your edits have involved censoring views that you disagree with.Verklempt 15:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, Verklempt, I also disagree with Heinegg and Demarce. After the removal of the

1832, the south saw race in two hues, black and white. This holds true for Virginia, North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina. The Catawbas, remaining Cherokee, and remaining Choctaw, remaining Creeks (see Poarch Creeks) were all classified as "issue free", "free persons of color", "mulatto", etc.and never American Indian or Native American. The census takers simply assigned a race classification to a particular individual. By the way mulatto is a very American classification. It simply means mixed. Mixed native peoples or mixed European, it's really not clear. In Canada, they are called Metis'. In Mexico, they are called Mestizo(where the word Mexico came from). So, mulatto simply means a mixture (what mixture, who knows?). There are no historians to document the appearance of these individuals that Berry, Heinegg, and Demarce commented on. We don't know by what race/peoples the census takers viewed them because the alternate classifications did not exist. This fact is also backed up by the fact there are numerous tribal groups in Virginia such as the Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and Monacan that can document their history but were also misclassified. So, if Heinegg and Demarce's research was taken from census records of Virginia/North Carolina, then it doesn't hold water. Furthermore, if Heinegg and Demarce claims were true, would these African American descendents own plantations and enslave their African American brothers and sisters? Some Lumbee did own slaves and operate plantations. Even if there were African American or European heritage in this group, does it reduce the legitimacy of the Lumbee as a true Native people/tribe? I think not! I understand that Arvis is banned from making any further comments on this site. However, Arvis and I agree the Tuscarora documentation, the arguments rebutting Heinegg and Demarce, and the Siouan connection should be included in the Wikipedia article. In short, one of the strongest arguements in favor of the Lumbee is the fact that they have clung tightly to their "Indianness". Their tribal practices in healing/herbal lore, storytelling, singing, clannishness, etc. testify of their pre-contact existence as a Native people. If Wikipedia is truly in search of the truth, it should present both sides of an arguement, remove phrases such as "some SMALL degree of Indian ancestery is plausible," and present diverse views instead of the slanted one-sided views of one "anonymous" individual. 29 September 2006 Alumbo

The issues with the census and the Tuscarora hypothesis are already included in the article.Verklempt 16:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that the census takers took it upon themselves to categorize the race of individuals need to be mentioned in connection with the Heinegg and Demarce remarks. Because Brewton, Berry, Heinegg, and Demarce did not take the restrictive categories imposed by the state governments and census takers into account. It was mentioned in an earlier version of the article about an individual named Chavis who did not self identify in a courtroom as Native American. If Native Americans couldn't testify, how would they self-identify? There is also a complete lack of documentation concerning the second sentence in the article pertaining to the Lumbee being a mixture of white, black, and Native American. I still believe the "small degree of Indian ancestry" statement should also be removed. It is simply opinion and not based in any documented source.

5 October 2006 Alumbo

You didn't even read the article, much less the response to your last comment. Your observation on the census procedures is already in the article, has been for a long time. Furthermore, you don't have your facts straight. James Lowrie was not HBL's father, nor is there any evidence of him making the statements you claim he did in antebellum court records. In fact, he was dead already. The article should not include fabricated stories like this.Verklempt 22:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did read the article and was responding to your last comment. Yes the

Tuscarora information is there but the census information should be listed along with the Heinegg information. Isn't that what drove their research? Since this is the article you wrote I should have realized that you are at least the authority in one area, "fabricated stories." Because, Arvis, I, and others are in agreement that this article is rife with POV and undocumented statements. A few of which are listed above. I deleted my earlier statements about James Lowrie. You were correct about that. Since the Lumbee weren't allowed to testify in court the quotation I was attempting to document was made by George Lowrie, cousin of Henry Berry Lowrie. At the funeral of his two sons he stated, "We have always been friends of white men. We were a free people long before the white men came to our land. There is the white man's blood in these veins. In order to be great like the English we took the white man's religion and laws. In the fights between the Indians and white men we always fought on the wide of white men, yet white men treated us as Negroes. He are your young men killed by a white man." Now, I am getting choked up by emotion (Verklempt) This quote was documented in 1864. (The Only Land I Know, p. 49) The man who killed George's son was said to be buried in an unmarked grave lying north to south, "crossways of the world," rather than east and west as the Lumbees traditionally bury their dead. 6 October, 2006 Alumbo

1) You really should read the article before complaining about it. The census observation you request is already in there, right where you want it, in the paragraph immediately preceding the Heinegg research. I've already told you this twice before, and I should not have to tell a literate person even once. 2) The source of the George Lowrie quote is Hamilton McMillan's pamphlet of 1888. He was not there in 1864 to hear it or record it. McMillan is not a very reliable source. 3) The man who killed George Lowrie's sons is a Lumbee ancestor, and is on the genealogy chart in the Lumbee petition.Verklempt 21:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're like Heinegg and Demarce, Verklempt. You weren't here when I read the article and

haven't even met me. Yet, you have the gall to state I am an illiterate and a liar. You are as predictable as drought in the desert. When someone challenges your assertion about African American lineage you bring up the race card. Also, when someone presents documentation of evidence which conflicts with your narrow minded view of the truth, you state that source is not reliable. Campisi, Sider, Swanton, and now McMillan are not reliable in your estimation. I admire these individual's credentials, but we don't know yours. I have more confidence in the known rather than the unknown. If you discredit McMillan because he wasn't there to hear George Lowrie's remarks, it proves my point about Heinegg and Demarce. I'll state again some of the problems I and others see in your article:

1) The statement concerning "SMALL DEGREE OF INDIAN ANCESTORY" This statement is POV, racist, and undocumented. 2) My illiterate point concerning the census information has to do with placement of this information. This information needs to be placed after the Heinegg and Demarce statements. Where it is now doesn't form a connect to Heinegg etc. information There is also no mention of other tribes in North Carolina and the southeast being misclassified as free persons of color. 3) The term tri-racial isolate is degrading and should not be used in connection with the Lumbee people. 4) The statement concerning "ALTHOUGH SIDER AND BLU TAKE SERIOUSLY THE LUMBEE CLAIM OF BEING NATIVE AMERICAN THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE FOR IT." Again this statement is POV, racist and undocumented. 5) The statement concerning "HOWEVER IN OTHER DOCUMENTS SUCH AS COURT RECORDS IN WHICH THE LUMBEE" (sic.) have the opportunity to self-identify. If the only support you have for this statement is the Chaver's case, it would stand to reason that if an individual could not self-identify for census records than he/she would not be able to self-identify in court. I've offered more documentation on the 1864 quote by George Lowrie than you have with this assertion. 6) The second statement in the article regarding Lumbee being a mixture of three races Once again point of view, racist, and undocumented.

It seems that you and Pokey think you can ignore any input submitted. It appears you have your own tyrannical kingdom set up here where views only YOU deem appropriate stay and dissenting views are dismissed. Thank you D. F. Lowry for your stand and your insightful remarks. It appears our only recourse is to appeal to the higher ups at Wikipedia to again have dissenting views included in this article. 12 October 2006 Alumbo

1) Re "small degree", I agree that it is POV. Should we instead say that none of the core Lumbee surnames in Robeson can be traced to any Indian ancestor at all? 2)I don't understand your problem with the placement of the census techniques. It doesn't belong in the same para with DeMarce and Heinegg, because they hardly cite census data very much at all. Their arguments are based on colonial records.

3)Your problem with the word tri-racial isolate is your own. It is well-established in the scholarly literature. 4)Re "little evidence"--I agree that that adjective is POV. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "no documentary evidence of Indian ancestry." 5)Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that "there are no extant records prior to 1885 in whicch Lumbee ancestors self-identify as Indians." 6) You've got to be kidding. The Lumbee's tri-racial ancestry is overwhelmingly documented (excepted for the Indian part). Verklempt 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Maybe this 1st phrase needs to be removed altogether. There has been documentation here in the discussion section about Robert Locklear being King of the Cheraws in 1738 (Wall Street Journal/Timelines in history) There are also documented

quotes with George Lowrie (circa 1865) by McMillan that you refuse to include.2) Where would the colonial records receive their data? In part from census takers etc.? Once more, I think in connection with Heinegg and Demarce there needs to be a reference to the fact that all remaining Native Americans, in the southeastern United States after 1830, were misclassified as "issue free," FPOC, etc. 3) As D. F. Lowry so eloquently pointed out, "tri-racial isolate" is considered a derogatory term in many academic circles today. It is also offensive to the Lumbee people The documentation in the article concerning "tri-racial" is a bit underwhelming 4)(see 4 above) I think to replace one POV phrase with another is useless. This phrase concerning "little evidence" also needs to be removed. If you decide to leave this phrase in, maybe you should consider moving the Charles F. Pierce, supervisor of Indian schools' comments, stating the majority of Lumbee were 3/4 quantum Native American blood (early 1900's), to the beginning of the article to present a more balanced view. The Pierce comments are documented unlike the statements I listed above. 11 October 2006 Alumbo

I've never seen a complete cite to the WSJ, and I don't see how that constitutes a reliable source on colonial history. 2) Heinegg and Demarce mostly cite court and land records. They rarely held a census in the colonial period. You're completely wrong about all Indians being changed over to FPC after 1830. That didn't even happen in NC, much less the entire SE. 3) I don't understand why tri-racial would be considered derogatory, unless some racist is in denial about his African ancestry.Verklempt 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tire of this stonewalling. Regarding 'race' and modern scholarship, please see the AAA statement on 'race': http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm . I personally don't care if I'm descended from a hyena, thats not the issue. The article is still too one-sided. Why is there no mention of the work of Gallay and the indian slave trade? How is it decided whether the slaves uncovered by H&D's work are of indian or African origin? The article still does not emphasize the scholarly viewpoint that these indians may have been wholly devoid of control of their identity. They were, after all, not part of the hegemonic culture. See, for instance, Bonita Lawrence, "Gender, Race, and the Regulation of Native Identity in Canada and the United States: An Overview", Hypatia - Volume 18, Number 2, Spring 2003, pp. 3-31, wherein the author seeks to demonstrate the settler government's control over indian identity in order to gain control over indian land. DF Lowry

1) I have no issue with the AAA statement, but it doesn't negate the reality and salience of racial categories in American history. It would be ridiculous history to pretend that race didn't exist for Americans. 2) Has Gallay documented any Lumbee ancestors? I've never seen any indication of that in his work. 3) When Lumbee ancestors are repeatedly described as "negro" or similar terms, it gives a fair indication of their social status. 4) The notion that Lumbee ancestors might have been Indians who were wholly devoid of control over their identity ignores the fact that numerous tribes on the mid-Atlantic coast retained an Indian ID, while the Lumbee ancestors never expressed one at all until 1885. Your notion of a totalizing conspiracy to de-Indianize Lumbee ancestors, one that lasted for two centuries and perpetrated by a variety of different political regimes, is simply ludicrous. It's certainly unsupported by evidence. And then to tie that nonsense into a settler state land grab conspiracy is even wackier, given that the Lumbee ancestors were part of the settler population obtaining colonial land grants.Verklempt

1) It does not negate racial categories but underscores how they were used by the dominant culture to subjugate people, then and now, as with this wiki article. 2),3) You haven't answered my question as to how the distinction is made between indian slaves and african slaves. "Fair indication" is not good enough, especially when scholars have shown how native identity was regulated by white culture. 4) You take a notion that is out there in the scholarly literature, ascribe it to me, and then call it ludicrous and wacky. How do you know that this work ignores the fact that numerous tribes retained an indian ID? The Lumbee ancestors were part of the settler population but they were less than white and suffered loss because of it. See tied-mule, see confiscation of firearms. I find it telling that some people love to discount a peoples' own account of their history and identity with documents of the WHITE culture, and still have the gall to hurl the 'racist' epithet.

1) I agree that the dominant culture had more power in creating racial categories, but the notion that this article subjugates anyone is absurd. 2)3)This article explores the contemporary consequences of historical racism. If you're not satisfied with the surviving evidence, that's your call. However, there is basically no surviving evidence of Indian identity among the Lumbee ancestors prior to 1885. This makes it a total leap of faith to assume that they had one. 4) You have a point. There is a lot of bad scholarship out there, and it is unfair of me to blame it on you. Tied-mule incidents have never been documented, and that's Sider's fault, not yours. Finally, the reason I discount Lumbee oral history is because they keep changing their story about what tribe they descend from. It's clear that they're making it up as they go along. Furthermore, none of the documented racial self-IDs by Lumbee ancestors prior to 1885 mention any Indian ancestry. That seems to be something that white Robesonians came up with and "imposed".Verklempt 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0) This is my last response. I have dedicated my life to cancer research and must get on with it. What have you dedicated yours to? Delegitimizing indian tribes? I won't continue dialog with an anonymous coward. 1)The upheaval of the more cogent ethnogenic Lumbee article curiously coincided with the Lumbees' latest bid to Congress for recognition. You do the math. 4) The bad scholarship is your own. I knew Rev. Doctor Fuller Lowry. I am his namesake. He gave me his timepiece and his quail gun a few years before he died. Have you met him? At 90 years of age he could recite the name of every single bone in the human body. If I am to question his motive in the '50's, it is only humbly. The Lumbee people are obviously a coalescence of tribes, and this ameliorates, if not entirely negates your concern about oral tradition, unless you wish to keep pushing your racist agenda. Its like the Alaskan Husky sled dog. As a group, they are a multiplicity of identities. Some are long-legged sight-hound crosses that win sprint championships. Some are trotters that win 1000 mile distance races. Some are heavy coated freighters, meant to maintain the trapline and sleep confortably at -40 degrees. What you see as a weakness in our position, we see as a strength. Over and out. Dr. D.F. Lowry

The "Lumbees as coalescence of tribes" is merely the latest in a long string of shifting stories. It doesn't contradict my observation that the story keeps changing. It is just the most recent example of not being able to stick to the same story for very long. Your conspiracy theory about Wikipedia as a tool for undermining Lumbee recognition is pretty funny.Verklempt 02:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Lumbees are made up of various tribes does not constitute a shifting of stories. Most Lumbee concur that the Lumbee are made of Cheraw and related Eastern Siouan peoples with a few members of the Cherokee, Tuscarora, and coastal tribes included. After the plagues of the 18th and 19th centuries killed more than 80% of Native peoples, many Native peoples coalesced into isolated swamps and mountainous areas. It's amazing how much Catawba ancestory you find around Cherokee. And yes Verklempt, the Catawba and the Cherokee were classified as FPOC in the 1830's. I haven't seen you prove otherwise. You state the Lumbee did not self identify before 1880's, why do you refuse to use the McMillan information. You can look up the WSJ information on your own in Timelines of History/Robert Locklear on the net. You also claim to agree that many statements in this article that you agree are POV but refuse to change them. D. F. and I have tried to work with you, and you simply seem to enjoy running around in circles without changing a thing. It's apparent it is useless to talk with you. Maybe the officials at Wikipedia will agree that both sides need to be heard. I agree with D. F. because it seems that you may be some kind of hired gun,as you claim with Campisi (unfounded), to undermine the Lumbee on the net. The Eastern Band pays their lobbyist in Washington $20,000 a month in casino (that's the root issue) profits to undermine our interests and promote their own agenda. Are you being payed that much? If not, you need to hit your bosses up for more money. The Lumbee and Cherokee are starting to make some friendly overtures to each other, so you better work fast.

: Alumbo 29 October 2006; There may have been individual Catawbas and Cherokees who were described as FPCs in the 1830s, but that is simply not true for the majority. There is no evidence at all to support that argument. I've already stated why the McMillan story is unreliable--he was not there when the story purportedly happened, and he has made up other stories and is generally an unreliable witness. I've never seen a specific cite to the WSJ claim, and so I am unable to verify it.Verklempt 15:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insult the integrity and motivations of users who disagree with you. Wikipedia does have a dispute resolution process, but ideally all concerned parties should have a username to keep the discussion in order. I'd like to see this resolved, but constant bickering on the talk page and deleting sourced information is not going to achieve that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this issue resolved also. At one time didn't this article

have a disputed tag? What happened to this tag? Who removed it? When were or when have we ever been invited to settle this issue? All the Lumbee posters have been given for the last two months is the same old song and dance. We feel this is not some petty disagreement. We feel it is matter of the highest importance which impacts the way the general public views the Lumbee people (my people) as a Native American tribe. Verklempt has some kind of issue and hostile intention toward the Lumbee people and the only shoe that appears to fit is the assertion listed above. 29 October 2006 Alumbo

Please specify exactly which statements in the article are disputed, what you want to change, and what the verifiable evidence is for the proposed changes.Verklempt 15:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Observer

It is something to see how Swanton's own notes, Heinegg's two decades of primary source research, DeMarce's historical and genealogical examinations, and critique of Campisi's obviously non-neutral work can so easily be shoved aside by people who just refuse to address the big issues of the disputed origins here. It is so much easier to simply say the award-winning research of Heinegg, DeMarce, et. al., is "shoddy" and "inadequate" while ignoring Swanton's own notes, and claiming Campisi is "objective," than it is to actually constructively engage the mounting evidence--like local and state court records dating from colonial times right through the 1870s--that the Lumbee are an artificial construct of fairly recent origin.

My own decade of research into the source base--ranging from 17th century wills, to 19th century court cases, to 1960s genetics--led me to believe, after many years of denial, that the Lumbee aren't American Indians. If it is this article that is "hogwash," then please cite specific sources that demonstrate this. Please put up some evidence so that all parties can evaluate. Support YOUR assertions re: the Lumbee are related to the Catawba Nation; that the Lumbee do not descend from African American/Euro-American unions (in other words, post a documented Cheraw Indian that is genealogically tied to the Lumbee ancestral base); that "Some" Lumbees "may have" migrated down the Virginia-Catawba Trading Road or any other trader's paths; your assesment that World Book's Lumbee entry is more factually accurate than this Wikipedia piece, even after all of its edits, corectives, and sourcing. My reading of the comments here has led me to conclude that if something written is supportive of Lumbee claims then it is unbiased, good, and honest, but if something written takes issue with or questions Lumbee assertions, then it is racist, inaccurate, or opinionted. I am going to check this World Book entry to see how it is sourced, and what research is cited.

What awards did Heinegg and Demarce win for their research? The silver sow award for that bunch of hogwash? The names they cite are frequently used names in eastern NC and Virginia. Mr./Ms. Observer, please do take a look at the World Book article. At least it documents Lumbee history without being derogatory or biased in either direction. Look at the 1930's "so called" genetics testing in connection with the Dawes Act. The BIA came AGAIN to Robeson County to "test" the quantum of Indian blood of our people. They thought they could determine who was 1/2 or more NA by measuring teeth, foreheads, etc. Full brothers and sisters were tested. One sibling would make it the other would not. Anyhow, somehow it was concluded that of the 200 tested, 22 were full bloods or at least 1/2 quantum (THE ORIGINAL 22). The BIA backed out of their promise to provide services to these 22. BTW, what genetic testing was available in the 1960's? Verklempt, is that you? If it's not you it must be or a brother in spirit with the claims of being a top Lumbee researcher and all of the unsubstantiated allegations again. My gracious!!!!! Arvis

Discussion on racial classifications of Lumbee/Tuscarora/Cherokee/Catawba ancestors and the Tuscarora Hypothesis

A comparison was made earlier between the racial classifications of Lumbee/Tuscarora (Robeson County) ancestors and the racial classifications of the Catawba and Cherokee ancestors. It was argued that with exception to a few individuals (who I would assume were located away from their respective tribal communities) that the Catawba and Cherokee ancestors were generally classified as Indian while Lumbee/Tuscarora (Robeson County) ancestors generally were not. At face value this makes for a pretty strong argument that Lumbee/Tuscarora (Robeson County)ancestors weren't Indian. At face value everything seems to be wrapped up in a nice little package here.

However, under an open minded, realistic, and unbiased analysis of the situation (not to mention the obviouse, which can currently be observed by anybody with a set of good eyes who's willing to make a visit to Robeson County) it will be seen that such logic is not nearly as solid as it may seem at a glance. It is an accepted rule of thumb within any scientific or intilectual experiment/observation that one must make absolutely sure that different test subjects or groups do not have varrying circumstances affecting them before any conclusions are drawn about them.

What this means is that scientifically, intillectually, and logically it is rediculous to make an argument based on conclusions reached from a comparison between groups whose histories played out in entirely different ways.

The Catawba and Eastern band Cherokee were always known to be Catawba and Cherokee in part because neither of them ever scattered away from their respective homelands indefinately (or perhaps some did and history forgot them?). Although the Easternband scattered briefly before collecting themselves, and many Catawba went to live with the Cherokee at one time before returing home, their histories and the history of the Lumbee/Tuscarora is still not the same.

It is true that the remaining Cherokee, the Catawba, and the remaining Tuscarora (at least some anyway) were all ultimately placed on reservations when everything was said and done(at least according to accepted history anyway, but that's another subject); but that is where the similarities end. The Catawba and Cherokee "BOTH" either remained on what was designated Catawba and Cherokee land or made it known where they were going whenever a large group of them went elsewhere, while the vast majority of the Tuscarora nation did not!

It is also essential to note that there were no lists or rolls made of Tuscarora families in North Carolina (making it virtually impossible to trace back to a person listed as Tuscarora), estimates of population were made, but unlike the Cherokee and Catawba (who weren't generally placed on lists until the 1800s anyway) with exception to a limited amount of transactions signed by a handfull of Tuscarora leaders (many who had white surnames) there is "NO SUCH LIST OF TUSCARORAS IN EXISTANCE FOR ANYONE TO DOCUMENT BACK TO (as this all happened throughout the 1700s)!" So to imply that it is impossible for someone to be Tuscarora because they can not trace back to such non-existant rolls/lists/census's is a rediculously invalid argument.

Before I continue farther it is important that certain folks are made aware of a few other important facts about "TRUE" Tuscarora history beforehand, because certain statements above and other statements in the "Tuscarora Hypothesis section" make it absolutely clear that there are certain so-called editors who are completely ignorant of the actual facts here.

It is estimated that roughly 3,000 Tuscaroras survived the Tuscarora war. When everything was said and done roughly 800 ended up in New York or Grand River, as many as 500 scattered up the coast or went to SC, and just over 100 remained on what was left of Indian Woods (the Tuscarora reservation on the Roanoke River in north eastern NC) by the early 1800s when the reservation was disbanded. That leaves us with a total of roughly 1400 accounted for Tuscarora in the history books and roughly 1600 "unaccounted" for Tuscarora in the history books (as in: over half) who dissappeared between 1715 and 1760 (at least from reservation land anyway)!

Records (see Blounts petition in the 1750s for a good example) show that the Tuscarora on Indian woods were continuously abused, harrassed and robbed of their lands from the get go (not to mention that many did not consider the state appointed leaders to be their true leaders). Taking this into consideration and comparing it to drastic statistical drops in population over the years (the largest recorded one being about 600 in a 2 year period during the mid 1700's with no record of them ever going North) it's easy to see that these folks did not stay on the reservation but scattered to the regions round about it or perhaps in part to less settled lands farther south (some as early as 1715 as the early records are very vague and don't even come close to accounting for the total population) with many attempting to obtain their own land and settle in a fashion acceptable to white society and in many cases probably even intermarrying with local non-Indians.

Thus a large portion of the Tuscarora nation (over half in fact) would have been considered detribalized as they were not living on tribal land and some were probably mixed bloods with at least one non-Indian living in the household. Thus to any census taker around "they would not have been seen as Indians (don't ask don't tell, remember that the Tuscaroras sacked Bath, New Bern, etc... not really a very popular thing to be claiming in colonial North Carolina)" they would have been seen as some other kind of "CIVILIZED" brown people. They would have been classed as or looked upon as Mullatos, Mustie's, Mustezes, mixt bloods, free person's of color, other free, etc... and more than likely would not have objected to being labeled in such generic ways (ironically enough, just as most Lumbee ancestors were labeled)! This is illustrated further by the fact that there were known to be over a hundred Tuscarora remaining on reservation land when it was disbanded in the early 1800s yet there were no Tuscaroras listed in any census (there were some mullatoes, other free, etc...many having distinctive Lumbee surnames) taken of that area after it was no longer "LEGALLY INDIAN LAND!"

Although it has been blindly stated time and time again on here that most Lumbee/Tuscarora (Robeson County) families originated from Virginia, that simply "IS NOT THE CASE! (read the discussion on Heinegg and Demarce below to understand further). The "FACTUAL" truth of the matter is that the vast magority can only be traced with certainty back to the counties that adjoin the Roanoke River in eastern North Carolina. "Some (keyword here)" do have partial (another key word) lineage that goes back to Virginia, but that is it! A large majority of the families that now make up what many refer to as the Lumbee appeared in the records without a trace in the Roanoke River region within 1o to 20 years after the Tuscarora reservation was established there (take the Locklear family discussed below for example).

So basically there are roughly 1600 unnaccounted for Tuscarora's in the records, history shows that the large magority of them (and others who had not yet removed north) would have been living somewhere in the viscinity of the Roanoke River by about 1715, history shows that by the late 1750s only about 300 were "ON RESERVATION LAND," history shows that most (who were not on reservation land) were not classified as Indians, and legitimate genealogical research has proven that the vast magority of the famillies who make up what we now call the Lumbee (who are indisputably of at least some Indian origin and who were racially classed in the same fashion that any un-reserved Tuscaroras would have been classed) actually originated from the Roanoke River region at the same time in which there were numerouse un-reserved/undocumented Tuscarora families residing throughout that area.

Not to mention that once in Robeson County The first writings as to Robeson County Indian origins all state that the people came from the Roanoke river area (as modern geneological reasearch also shows when properly read) and also that their indian origin was solely Tuscarora (blood quantum is another discussion all together) with one account going so far as to even portray oral history in Robeson County as being identical to recorded history on the Roanoke (i.e. General Gorman who stated c. 1875 that Tuscaroras in Robeson County moved from along the banks of the Roanoke River about a century prior due to encrouchment from the planters, he did mention also that they miscongeniated with some non-Indians...but then again we all know this to be true and blood quantum is not the issue at hand just yet anyway).

My point for the time being is that racial designations don't mean squat in this situation and statements infering that only a handfull of Tuscaroras remained in North Carolina or that "MOST" Lumbee ancestors came from Virginia need to be removed from the article!

Personally I believe that the Lumbee are by far primarily of Tuscarora descent, but I do not expect anyone else to feel the same just because I say so. What I do insist upon is that this article include all the facts and that it present all of them in an equal and unbiased way so that the readers can reach whatever decision they so chose based on accurate, complete, and unslanted information! There is still way to much POV (in many cases borderline bigotry) within this article!

It's a known fact that most indian nations have a considerably large non-Indian influence mixed into them. Why certain individuals keep subliminally insinuating that since there is more African blood than the norm in Robeson County Indians than in most other tribes that they are less or illegitimate I don't know? I mean there are 12,000 enrolled Eastern band Cherokees (many with as low as 1/16 blood quantum) and only a few hundred who are fullbloods. I've been to Catawba as well and it is very apparent that most of them (some do look Indian) are even more mixed race than the majority of the people in Robeson County. Why is it that folks cite how super Indian these nations are without pointing out how mixed race they are at the same time? Why are they not harrassed and degraded in the same fashion as my people? Where do you people get the contempt and hatred that you posses? I mean going all out of your way like this to slander a people that you obviously have such a serious lack of knowledge about. And why is it that you aren't confident enough in your words to sign your name to them? I am staking my reputation on what I say (some of which does not make me popular even amongst my own people), why aren't you self-proclamed experts willing to do the same?

Bobby Hurt 04:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are good questions Bobby. I don't have the answers but Arvis and myself have speculated that this is a paid smear campaign. I don't know why the main antagonist will not sign his/her real name, I can only guess that he/she/it is scared, a coward, unable to stand behind their convictions. Or it could go deeper psychologically. Perhaps he/she/it comes from a race that basically laid down in submission before the threat of genocide and did nothing to defend themselves. Perhaps he/she/it is simply jealous of our will to survive and will to fight for that survival. We may never know. The latest is the ignorant appeal to Pollitzer's work. While his work was groundbreaking in the field of Physical Anthropology, it simply came too early. He should have used as many genetic loci as possible and should have used cluster analysis to determine the classes rather than an a-priori assumption of three race components. Too early and too naive. The work of the esteemed Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has shown that there is no meaningful genetic determination of race. The genetic variation within a so-called race is often greater than that between so-called races. It is operationally meaningless. A response from our antagonist would be interesting but ignorant, given the level of misunderstanding of basic genetics seen in the main page. I do not expect an intelligent response is forthcoming.David F Lowry 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that personally I'm not really much of an expert on racial genetics and what not. I did take a few biology classes in college and I understand a little about genes, alleles, and what not but thats about it, so I'll just let you handle all the technical stuff on this one..LOL!

I am curious though (perhaps our antagonist can answer this for me?) as to whether all of these people were 100% Lumbee (or what many now refer to as Lumbee) on all sides of their family? I would also like to know if the charts were given of the family trees of the Cherokees (who, being politically correct and everything are, a definate bi-racial isolate...you know considering that 95% are part white and everything) and the Seminoles (who according to the same politically correct logic that certain editors seem to insist upon so much are a definate tri-racial isolate) used as the control groups in this experiment?

On another note (getting back to the historic racial classification thing) I'd like to tie this discussion into something I stated below about the Hammonds family. It is essential that certain folks take note of the fact that the term Mullato was used to desribe a person who (in the same sentence) was said to have no African blood in them! I mean...if the term always meant that a person had to be part black, how is it that it was used to describe a person who was known not to be? Even more intiresting is that the term was used in conjuntion with the word mustees (a mixed blood Indian) in a manor indicating that both terms could be used to descibe the same thing!

Also, there is another instance (in Heinegg and Demarce's work) where 3 Jones' and 3 Chavis' blatantly described themselves as being Free Persons of Color (that means Black right?....or does it? Hmmmmm!) and then went on to state that "THEY WERE COLORED BY INDIAN BLOOD! So it appears that they didn't object to being called FPC even though they regarded themselves as being indians......Could we be on to something here?

Another intiresting example involving the Carter family is how a brother and sister were classed differently. One was classed as a Mustie (mixed blood Indian)in the Clinton area while the other was listed as Mullato in the Robeson area.

and the list goes on...

Like I said earlier, racial designations didn't mean squat back then! Perhaps certain editors should start re-thinking some of their positions and start analyzing things in a realistic context? Enough of this tunnel vision crap..its getting played out!Bobby Hurt 04:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Lumbee origins

This dispute is ongoing, I think it's high time for an RfC. It seems the origins of the tribe are disputed, with some accepting that they are an authentic Indian tribe, and others believing they are a more recently developed multiracial community with no real tribal history.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I submit that the latter is clearly is the minority position and, as such, should not merit a place in the Lead or a dominant position in the body of this page. Jas392 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We know who we are and really don't need "so called" experts to tell us. BTW the tribe has been state recognized since 1888. In 1956, we also received partial federal recognition which allows us to pursue funding for INDIAN education and INDIAN housing. We are members and have leadership positions in national organizations such as NCAI (National Congress of the American Indian) and NIEA (National Indian Education Association). Again, we don't need "SO CALLED EXPERTS" to classify us. WE KNOW WHO WE ARE. Thanks, Arvis

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Comments

Hi, I studied the Lumbee once in my pre-wikipedia days... Here is a vital website with concrete evidence linking the Lumbee with the Lost Colonists... The Virginia Dare Stones are also inscribed in ELizabethan English, and the Lumbee were discovered by later colonists in the 16th and 17th centuries already speaking broken English, practising Christianity, and going by the surnames of the supposedly "lost" Roanoake colonists! [2] However, I appreciate that there has been a substantial coverup of these facts by those who don't like to admit to such things... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Those who do not think we have a tribal history, do not really know us!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.149.228.13 (talk • contribs)

There is no way that Wikipedia can resolve this issue. Our role is only to document (with proper sources) the disagreement. Rmhermen 15:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see some of the Lumbee sources. What tribes are they related to? What language are they supposed to have spoken, and what is the evidence for it? What groups or entities recognize them as Indians? Obviously having white or black ancestry, to even a large extent, does not disqualify someone from being an Indian, but what is the evidence for the pre-Columbian ancestors of the Lumbee?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An outsider's view

I am not a Lumbee. I never heard of the Lumbee people prior to noticing the conflict pertaining to this article. I'm the one who locked the article in its semi-protected state, in hopes of calming things down somewhat.

I really don't know enough to judge the validity of the statements regarding the origins of the Lumbee; however, what is clear is that there is a controversy.

Therefore, we should present both sides of the controversy: the facts that both sides can agree on.

Try to write so as to provide a minimum of statements that someone on the other side of the debate could consider a flaw. DS 21:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The main controversy here seems to be that Arvis has objections to the inclusion of several of the cited sources and their findings. Apparently he wants them taken out. I don't see a reasonable resolution to that request. Gallay liked the older version from earlier this year better than the current version. Then he disappeared, and cannot be troubled to tell us specifically what his beef is. An anonymous editor keeps removing a sentence that mentions the existence of African and European ancestry among Lumbees, even though this is well documented, and acknowledged by all published sources. These are not complaints that can easily be addressed.Verklempt 04:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- What you fail to mention is that there are sources which state the contrary to your assertions in this article. For example, the documentation of the eight times the Bureau has visited the Lumbee and confirmed they are a tribe. What about the Pierce findings that the majority of Lumbee were 3/4 Native blood quantum. Most sources cited in this article are biased against the Lumbee. I have yet to see the documentation,other than the shoddy Heinegg research that proves the existence of African American and European heritage among the Lumbee. I am not denying there could be some, but why does that fact need to be emphasized. Why? That fact applies to all eastern Native peoples. As a previous editor stated, some African American/European American ancestory should not preclude or diminish a people's status as a Native American tribe. I agree with what Dragonfly stated, perhaps it be fair to present both sides of the arguement, pro and con. I agree with Gallay, it sounds like the earlier version was less biased. By the way, if I besmirched (sp.) your family background, you would want

to delete the false information too. Think about it. The Vandals (French) help bring down a corrupt Roman empire. On certain occasions a little vandalism is needed. :>) Arvis

- - I don't think there is any dispute that the Lumbees are a recognized tribe today. The controversy is over how the Lumbee ancestors were identified before 1885. I don't understand how acknowledging African and European ancestry is "besmirching" anyone. It is a simple statement of historical fact that Lumbee ancestors were so identified, and were not identified as Indians, prior to 1885. To remove that truth from the article is to distort the historical record in order to coddle the preferred origins myth of contemporary people. Is this to be an encyclopedia, or a reiteration of myths so that we can make some people feel better about their ancestry?Verklempt 16:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It is a besmirch if the only documentation you offer is one piece of research and other

unsubstantiated allegations. Wikipedia is not a place for individuals to criticize a group, tribe, religious group, or other entity because they FEEL they are the beginnning to end expert. You say Tomayto, I say Tumahato. I don't need you to make me feel better about my ancestry. I know who I am. Do you? We Lumbee have a saying, "Truth (true words) will stand the test of time." Over 121 years is a long time to "reiterate" some myths isn't it?

Arvis 31 August 2006.

- - There is no criticism in this article, unless one is so racist that he can't deal with having African ancestors. There are hundreds of historical documents supporting the simple fact of African and European ancestry. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, the article still needs to air this aspect of historical knowledge about this group.Verklempt 21:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You're the racist Verklempt. You have some unknown grudge against

Lumbees. I admitted there may be some African American heritage among my people. The same holds true among ALL eastern tribes. I don't see why we have to suffer your brand of the truth when there is proof to the contrary. 31 August 2006 Arvis

- - I don't understand the nature of your complaint. You don't want some of the most prominent researchers included in this article, apparently because they are the ones who document the African ancestry. If you're acknowledging the truth of African ancestry, then what's your problem with including mention of it in the article?Verklempt 21:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The True Origins of the Lumbee-- Tuscarora

The Lumbee article is largely biased and misleading. There is no mention in the Lumbee article of the fact that the majority (95%) of the surnames/ families comprising the "Lumbee" tribe can be traced to the Tuscarora Reservation of the 1700's in Bertie Co. NC. There is a multitude of documentation avaialable indicating that these people are in fact Tuscarora. A number of experts, including acclaimed author Dr. Peter Wood, among others agree that the so-called "Lumbee" are actually Tuscarora Descendants. The "Lumbee" name was recently created and has no historic basis. There is rarely mention or discussion of the "Lumbee" tribe's Tuscarora roots.

The familiar story is that after the war most Tuscarora fled to New York to join the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy/ 5 Nations: the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca) but this was not the case. In fact about half of the Tuscarora (1,500) moved to New York. The other half (1,000- 1,500) fled to Virginia, some assuming tributary status under the Colony, but most returned to North Carolina. A small remnant of Tuscarora and other tribes, including the Chowanoc and Nansemond remained in Eastern Virginia/ North Carolina under the leadership of King Tom Blount. While others scattered into the countryside, in small communities, or joined with ally tribes such as the Chowanoc.

On June 5, 1717 these Tuscarora were “given” (from land that was once theirs) 41,000 acres as a reservation. Due to the numerous hardships they faced, these families began to scatter from the reservation into the North Carolina Countryside, which at that time was frontier, with very few Whites residing there. In 1730 only 300 individuals remained on the Reservation. Many ended up to the West in Edgecombe County. Their Tuscarora surnames include Lowry, Locklear, Kearsey, Chavis, Cumbo, and Brayboy among numerous others. These families resided in Bertie in the Early 1700’s, Northampton in 1728, and Edgecombe in 1736. This, along with other common surnames proves that these Tuscarora families lived near or among the Webbs before departing and shared the same migration to Edgecombe County in the 1760’s and later.

Among the Tuscarora who first appear in the area of what is now Robeson County was Chief Billy Mitchell, and James Lowry. Before moving south, these families were on the Tuscarora Indian Woods Reservation in 1713. Chief Mitchell (William Mitchell) signed a legal document there along with Chief James Lowry before their move south to Cape Fear/ Bladen County in 1757.

After leaving Indian Woods, in the 1720’s these Tuscarora were deeding land along the Roanoke. In the same location were the Indian families: Cumbo, Freeman, Day, Demeory, and Weeks. They are listed as witnesses on many of one-another’s deeds. In the 1720’s the Chavis, Locklear, Bass, Gibson, and Sweat Families also lived on the Roanoke in the area of Edgecombe and Bertie.

This is just the "tip of the Ice-berg." -- David Webb

Why did these folks claim to be Cherokees in the early 20th century? Why did they start claiming to be Cheraws later on? Why did the NY Tuscaroras say in the early 19th century that all their people had migrated, except for a handful who had intermarried with free blacks? It is plausible and likley that some mid-Atlantic FPC families have a modicum of Tuscarora ancestry, but the proof is entirely speculative.Verklempt 16:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==

Bold text == The Cherokee name was basically forced upon the people, with A.W. Mclean (future governor and assistant secretary of the U.S.treasury) as the sponsor of the legislation. His "inside man" so to speak, was D.F. Lowry, a nephew of H.B. Lowry (tuscarora). Mr. Mclean, when rationalizing the renaming to Cherokee, he twisted people's oral traditions, attempting to make a connection to the Cherokee in the mountains. Mr. Mclean came up with the so-called connection to the John Lowry who signed a Cherokee treaty circa 1800, but that was never substantiated.

The Cherokee fought the designation of the people from Robeson County, as Cherokee from the beginning, but the State ignored their protests, designating our people cherokee in 1913. The State appeased the Cherokee in the mountains somewhat by giving our people the name, and nothing more.

My own feelings as to why Cherokee was given, was due to the fact that in 1916, the Bertie County Reservation Land leases were to expire, and if there were no recognized Tuscarora in the state, the land would revert to N.C. The original name given in 1885 was Croatan, but McMillan admited that they were actually Tuscarora, which is why the names began to change just before the 1916 date. In 1911, the name was changed from Croatan, to "Indians of Robeson County", which must have been too vague for the state of N.C.'s concern, which why the name was changed again in 1913.

As far as the Cheraw, that name was just another part of the State's attempt of keeping our ancestor's identity confusing. There may be a minute infusion of Souian, but again, the major portion of Indian blood is Tuscarora. In 1933, Swanton gave "his version", which is why the many of the people began to identify as Souian when the IRA testing occured a few years later. Never the less, the governnment has acknowledged the fact that there were 22 half or more full blood Tuscarora recognized here in the 1930's, which was only a fraction of the actual number that "should" have been recognized. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/ottletter.html

The Lumbee themselves can't prove but one surname that "possibly" comes from Cheraw, and Michelle Lawing stated that the Cheraw didnt come into Robeson County until the early 1800's. Our people's "core group" was already in this area well before 1800.

This is why the northern Tuscarora said that in 1802. They were seeing only the Bertie County area, and did not come to the Robeson area looking for their Kin. By 1802, most of the people had already left the reservation, going in all directions. The Chiefs never knew about the numerous other Tuscarora communities that had popped up in other parts of the state. --Roskerah 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The proof is not even remotely "speculative" LOL. Basically every major Lumbee surname originated among the Tuscarora: Lowry, Locklear, Kearsey, Chavis, Cumbo, Goins, Gibson, etc, etc. Their migration pattern from residing on the Bertie reservation, to Edgecombe County, to Bladen, in what is now Robeson is well document through land deeds and other legal documents.

What about this is speculative? Its the only SOLID evidence on their/our origins!

It's all speculative, in that none of these people have been linked to the Tuscarora tribe in historical documents. Just because they lived in the same county the Tuscaroras had vacated doesn't mean they were Tuscaroras. The Tuscaroras themselves said in the early 1800s that they had already collected all of their people and moved north, save for a few that had intermarried with negroes. The other issue is that none of the robeson people ever claimed to be Tuscaroras until the mid-20th century, after they had already cycled through a bunch of other identities.Verklempt 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong,-- I can think of several documented examples off the top of my head, including individuals who migrated to Robeson from the Bertie Reservation such as "Chief Billy Mitchell" and "Chief James Lowry" signing agreements as Tuscarora representatives. Also a Kearsey is noted as being "Tuscarora." There are many more examples including lists similar to a roll or census which lists Lowries (Lowry), Locklear, Chavis, Cumbo, etc as Tuscarora. All of these individuals made the migration. Also, there is no doubt among Tuscarora in New York and academics/experts as to Robeson Indians being Tuscarora descendants. The Tuscarora in NY have acknowledged that there are Tuscarora remaining in NC, they don't accept NC Tuscarora because they track their lines through the mother's side. There are however, many NC Tuscarora with unbroken matrilineal lines. It is well known that the Tuscarora moved to NY in waves, even into the 1800's. There were some that remained, in fact there are Tuscarora descendets living in Bertie and Edgecombe as well as Robeson. Dr. Peter Wood from Duke outlines all of this in his report: "An Historical Report Regarding the Relation of the Hatteras Tuscarora Tribe of Robeson County, North Carolina, to the Original Tuscarora Indian Tribe."

- - I can't find this report by Wood in any catalog. Can you please give us a more detailed citation, so that your assertions can be verified?Verklempt 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've met Peter Wood and have spoken with him about the Lumbee before. Strange he never mentioned this article or report. Yes, please provide a citation and/or location so that interested researchers may take a look. Thanks Factiness 22:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too have this report. He did it for the Hatteras Tuscarora Tribe's petition, that has been filed at the BIA for almost 27 years, but the government refuses to look at it, using the Lumbee Act as their only excuse. You may want to contact him again. Maybe he will send you a copy. Email me, and I might be able to send you part of it. --Roskerah 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- This is the final conclusion of Dr. Woods report, beginning on page 116:

"...It is the impression of this historian that the claim is a strong one, if presented properly. There is sound evidence that some of the Tuscarora Indians who remained in North Carolina after the Tuscarora War eventually migrated to Robeson County before 1800. They had every reason to play down their Tuscarora identity, given the hostile atmosphere, yet evidence of these connections still managed to survive. After the Civil War in the era of Henry Berry Lowrie, Robeson’s most famous Native American, it was well known in the area that his ancestors had been Tuscaroras. Some of his descendants were among those who were designated as Indians during a survey of the county in the l930s. Over the past century, generations of Tuscarora descendants have been active in the county’s complex local political life, usually representing the more rural and poorer portion of the Indian community, who have sought to maintained some distance from white and black culture in the area and some control over their own affairs. The re—emergence of this Tuscarora identity in the early l970s was seen by many as manufactured pose, when in fact the roots were extremely deep. But they had been hidden by generations of speculation about how all the Indians of Robeson County might best be lumped together under one title. The Congressional recognition of Lumbees in 1956 should not limit or constrain the Tuscarora claim. Nor should the absence of a continuous tribal structure of governance, for, as explained in the introduction, these persons are not seeking recognition as an independent and enduring historical tribe, but rather as a remnant of an existing and recognized tribe that was forced to move out of the southeastern region. In this sense, the Hatteras Tuscaroras are best seen as comparable to the Eastern Cherokees or the Mississippi Choctaws, that is, descendants of people who managed to remain near their ancestral homelands when major upheavals forced most of their kin to migrate elsewhere."--Roskerah 16:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now got wind of this report; the full title is "Tuscarora Roots: An Historical Report Regarding the Relation of the Hatteras Tuscarora Tribe of Robeson County, North Carolina, to the Original Tuscarora Indian Tribe." It is 160 pages in length, including references and bibliography. However, it was written only in 1992, though, and so has not been on file at the BIA for 27 years--something less than 14 actually. The information submitted for the Hatteras Tuscarora petition was merged with that submitted in 1999 by the Tuscarora Nation East of the Mountains, who the BIA determined required legislative action for eligibility to petition. This decison was based--in part, at least--on genealogical associations with the Lumbee, also determined ineligible to apply. So, to say the government refuses to even look at it, I don't know how accurate that assessment is.

- Here is the reason I said that the government refuses to look at Tuscarora petitions:

http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1989opinion.html --Roskerah 16:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I think I should clarify that fact that the government initially put the Hatteras petition on the "active status" list, sending a LOD(Letter of Obvious Deficiencies)to Vermon Locklear in 1985. The Hatteras were the 15th petition of all petitions submitted to date, and probably the longest on file without a final decision.

I say all of this to show that the "ONLY" reason that the petition was never approved by now, is this 1989 solicitor's opinion. Another piece of the puzzle is the fact that the Tuscarora Tribe of N.C.(not listed on the Nov 3rd letter), who had at that time Lawrence Maynor and his family as members. In 1987, http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1987petition.html , the TTNC filed this petition with Mr. Maynor, but were subsequently told that even he now had to file another petition, even though the lawsuit he won stated that he still retained his rights notwithstanding the Lumbee Act. TTNC spent almost two years preparing the petition, and let it be known when they would file it. So, just prior to their filing the petition, which was filed on December 5, 1989, the BIA issued this new "opinion", which enables them to once again deny Mr. Maynor's attempt at "tribal recognition". --Roskerah 03:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Also, there were several other instances when the surviving "22" petitioned the BIA. Here is one from 1977: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1977petition.html . When it really comes down to it, the BIA has denied the Tuscarora recognition, because they know that it would be a back door for the Lumbee to become recognized with full benefits. They know that the majority of the Lumbee people descend primarily from Tuscarora. Here is a letter which explains the BIA's concerns. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1980keepletter.html --Roskerah 07:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it seems the East of the Mountains group submitted a letter of intent to apply only in September of 1999, about a decade after the Hatteras Tuscarora (under Vermon Locklear) were determined ineligible. However, the Hattadare Nation, under leadrship of Mr. James Lowery, submitted a letter of intention to the BIA in 1979, about two years prior to submission of the same by the Drowning Creek Tuscarora Indian Tribe. This group, too, like the Lumbee, were determined to be ineligible in 1989. In 1997, the Drowning Creek Tuscarora were formally disolved as a group or entity. The same thing happened to Leon Locklear's Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina, who submitted a letter of intention to petition at the end of 1985. Meanwhile, the "Lumbee Regional Development Association, Incorporated," submitted a letter, and later morphed into the Lumbee Tribe of Cheraw Indians. I do not know how the Cherokee-Tuscarora of Hoke County, Inc. (at Lumber Bridge, North Carolina), are connected, but like the others, they were determined ineligible due to being the same people, in essence, as the Lumbee.

I shall refrain from getting into an analysis of the "Hatteras Tuscarora Tribe of Robeson County" report here. It was a little tentative, I think, and somewhat inconclusive. The depth and breadth of genealogical explication does not begin to approach what I have seen elsewhere. But, like a lot of the material at the BIA--boxes and boxes and files and files of reports, copies of records and so forth--it makes for interesting reading. What I find more intriguing, by far, are the competing claims to various tribal origins and identities. I wouild like to see an in-depth examination of that phenomenon.Factiness 02:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you brought this up, because it goes to show how complicated things have become the last 30 years especially. First of all, I too think that the report was "tentative" as you put it, but it does nevertheless do something that no other PhD has done pertaining to Tuscarora here, and he didn't "tow the line" like the others before him. I never intended to say that this report was submitted when the petition was filed, and yes, it was sent in as a supplement years later.

Anyway, the Hatteras had no reason to "have" to submit a petition in the first place, due to the fact that this was the name of the group that began the final process of recognition in 1975, after the Maynor V. Morton case. This lawsuit was filed by several of the surviving "22" who were recognized in the 1930's. This lawsuit came about because of the fact that the BIA initially denied that the "22" retained any rights under the IRA, because of the Lumbee Act. The Feds said that the Lumbee Act was termination legislation, and that "all" Indians of Robeson County, including those who claimed Tuscarora. Lawrence Maynor ultimatedly won, and the BIA began working with the Hatteras to finalize the recognition of a "tribe", and not just several individuals. Under the IRA, individual Indians of half or more blood had the right to form a tribe by incorporating, creating constitution, and having land put into trust, and ultimately, create tribal roles. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1975BIAmemo.html http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/ottletter.html

As you will see in the above link, the government has already acknowledged that there are "recognized" individual Tuscaroras here(18 BIA houses were built because of the Maynor decision), though they have been able to circumvent a "tribe" of Tuscarora from being "recognized". The government has been in contempt of the 1975 decision since 1989, when they barred the Tuscarora petitions from being looked at again. The language of the 1989 solicitor's opinion goes back to the same "pre Maynor" language they had used to deny the "22" in 1971. The difference between recognized individuals, versus a Tribe, is the fact that individuals cannot bring landclaim lawsuits because that right is vested within a sovereign entity (Tribe/Nation). Landclaims have been the reason for the name games with our people from the very beginning, with Hamilton McMillan injecting into his pamplet that;

"...I do not find that the Hatteras Indians or the so-called Croatan Indians ever had any treaty relations with the United States, or that they have any tribal rights with any tribe or band of Indians; neither do I find that they have received any lands or that there are any moneys due them..."

Mr. McMillan could safely, and honestly make this previous statement, because he had created the Croatan "Tribe", and had effectively wiped away the Tuscarora identity. He could not have made that statement that I quoted if he had pushed the Tuscarora designation, because the Tuscarora had several treaties, one of which in 1802, that was never ratified. Since it was never ratified, it is null and void, but it is a moot point since there are no "recognized" groups still in the state. Again, individuals could not bring a suit in regards to a treaty. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1803affirmancefromUS.html

I have the 1989 solicitor's opinion, and I am going to upload it after I post this for anyone who would like to see it. It just goes to show how the government has kept our people chasing our tails for many many years, with no end in sight. I could go on and on...but...--Roskerah 04:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and reviewed the documents posted at the links you've provided. I had seen some oif this before, but it is something to see it all like this and to realize that, despite genealogy (which the feds did not have access to back in those days), the BIA did more or less acknowledge these "22." They did state these few people were 1/2 Indian (some more) based on physical appearance. And, in light of the information I've been going over now concerning the Tuscarora, the treaties, the leases, etc., I would suggest that even though Tuscarora ancestry is undocumented (Norment notwithstanding) I think that tribal background is at least plausible. That in the sense that perhaps the second James Lowry, or someone else in that line, say circa 1750s-1770s, could have intermarried with a woman of Tuscarora ancestry. I say it is plausiblebut not necessarily probable. Fact is, though, you cannot help but wonder how some of the "Lumbee" people acquired their "Indian" cast--I know its only a minority; apparently the federal investigators thought so as well back in the 1930s. Still, if the BIA built these houses, and so forth, it would seem to me that irregardless of actual genetic ancestry, the federal government ought to live up to whatever promises they have made. And if you are suggesting that the descendants of those 22 essentially comprise a separate gruop, a distinct ethnic enclave among the larger "Lumbee" population (this is the impression I am getting overall) then certainly legislative action is in order; but how are the Lumbee Tribe of Cheraw going to respond to this?

I am going to sign out now, and may not respond anymore, but I am curious and if anyone would care to express an opinion, I'd certainly look forward to reading that here. Thanks.

- Actually, the feds did have genealogical records, but they didnt use them to make determinations. Each applicant back then gave their genealogy, but by that time, most oral tradition had been lost, with the "revised" history coming out in many applications. Heck, most applications stated that they were claiming to be of the "Suoian Tribe". That shows just how ignorant the people were as to their own history.

http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/kermitlowryapp.html

This application is of Kermit Lowry, son of Rev. D.F. Lowry. D.F. was a nephew of Henry Berry, and the leading Indian from here in getting the Cherokee and Lumbee names. Notice that he and his wife claimed Tuscarora, though neither were accepted as 1/2 or more.

Next, Felix Cohen once wrote that there should have been atleast several hundred accepted here, but when it was done, only 22. In many instances, full siblings were denyed, which just go to show how unfair the testing was in the first place. The main reason that the government disallowed the IRA to be fully implemented with the people here, is because once a "Core group" had been established on reservation land, even with only "22" as the core, these "22" would have the right to take in all of the others that were "not" accepted by the government. After all, most of the people were kin anyway, and the government knew that they couldn't stop the "22" from taking in everyone.

Next, there were many writings prior to Norment, that stated that we were of Tuscarora blood. "The Swamp Outlaws", Harpersweekly magazine, John Gorman's writings, letters of the Freedmen's bureau, and others, all prior to Norment's 1875 book. There were alot more than "One Tuscarora" who came here. We know of many, including chiefs who migrated here aswell. The Lumbee themselves has some of this information in their "settlement pattern study".

Lastly, the "22" are not different ethnically, which is what has worried the government all of these years. They know that we all descend from the same places. --Roskerah 17:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, have you ever seen that letter to the Freedmen's Bureau from the two ministers that says the Lowries are Tuscaroras? Part of it is in the Evans book, but I have never been able to find the original. It would be nice to know what the entire litter says, instead of just that one little fragment that Evans prints. Do you know if anyone else besides Evans has ever found that letter, and where I might see a copy?Verklempt 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, I have never seen that actual letter, though I do have the info on where it can be found. {(U.S. War Department, Records of the Army Commands (Record Group 393,

National Archives)} {(Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen (Lumberton N.C. office) Record Group 105,National Archives) (Sider’s “Living Indian Histories” page 170)}

Also, here is: Gorman's writings: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/gormanwritings.html Swamp Outlaws: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/files/The_Swamp_Outlaws.htm Harper's Weekly: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1872harpersweekly.html Lowry History: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/lowriehistory.html

--Roskerah 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response and the links. However, that letter and the whole Birnie investigation is not in the Freedmens Bureau records. I know because I looked. This leads me to believe that Sider never saw it either.Verklempt 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Oh really, well I wonder if Evans had a copy of it? This was in reference to the killing of George Lowrie's boys, is that right? It is strange that it wouldnt be in the archives, though there is alot that "should" be in the archives that is missing, that pertains to the people here. --Roskerah 15:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Evans did see the actual letter. I believe that the letter and other documents in the Birnie Investigation are probably still in the National Archives in downtown DC somewhere. The problem is that Evans's citation is so vague that to find this letter you would have to wade through potentially thousands of boxes, reading hundreds of papers in each box. It's not in the Freedman's records, because Birnie sent the results of his investigation to the military authorities. So it's probably still among the military records somewhere, like a needle hidden in a haystack. The letter itself--as reported by Evans--was written by two ministers who were part of the gang that murdered Allan and William Lowry, and who were among those gang members being investigated by the Freedman Bureau agent Birnie. I think the ministers were trying to lay a paper trail to get themselves off the hook for this murder.Verklempt 19:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Uh, try at least two surnames connected with the Cheraw and they

are biggies (Chavis and Locklear) Arvis

°°°° Arvis, how did you come to this conclusion? Chavis and Locklear originate from Edgecombe County in the early 1700's, though some with these names did move into South Carolina "after" moving into the Robeson Area. The Lumbee themselves can't prove a Cheraw connection with these two names, so how can you? The only name that they "think" comes from Cheraw is Grooms. (Source: "Settlement pattern study" LRDA, 1983, written by Rebecca Seib, with Wes White and Carol Oxendine. There is also a "restricted report done by Wes White and David Wilknis, which can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCTuscarora/)

- - - - Reverend Zimmie Chavis traces his lineage to Chief Ismael

Chavis of the Cheraw (Marlboro, SC). Adolph Dial and I trace our lineage to Robert Locklear (Marlboro, SC). Robert L. also married an Evan's girl as did Tom (big Tom). When I have a chance there is more evidence on my tree to support this. BTW, Vernon Cooper also traces his lineage back to SC. Remember the trading path. Its possible the Locklear's, Chavis', etc. did travel from SC up the trading path from Va., down through Edgecombe, etc. I am not disputing that some of our folks were Tuscarora (Roanoke River etc.). However, most of our people are of Siouan descent.

P.S. I've also heard that Locklear has connection w/ the Lossiah, a Cherokee surname, but I haven't seen alot of creditable evidence to support that. Arvis

These people had moved to S.C. after living in the Robeson area. Robert and "Big Tom" were sons of Major Locklear, who was a son of the 1st Robert Locklear(died in Edgecombe), who was mentioned in the will of Ben Rawlins on Dec 10th, 1738, and his own will was made May 24th 1749, with Nat and William Cooper as witnesses. (Halifax deeds Book 3, page 347, N.C. State archives) I descend from another son of Major called "Lazy Will".

During this timeframe, the remaining Cheraw had already moved to Catawba, and was living among them. You are wrong in saying that the migration went from south to north, it was in the reverse order. The earliest known date of Major Locklear being in this area was Jan 21, 1754, acting as a chain bearer for the Survey of Thomas Robeson's 100 acre tract of land. Major and his brother John were chain bearers for many surveys around the same time.(Survey book 1753, pages 31-32, N.C. State Archives)

As far as who Robert and Tom married, I have that they married daughters of Aquilla Quick. --Roskerah 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the evidence that Ismael Chavis and Robert Locklear were Cheraws?Verklempt 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Two websites which cite as reference a Wall Street Journal article: http://www.decades.com and timelines in history. The websites and the news article state that Robert Locklear was King of the Cheraws in 1738. My information for Ishmael Chavis came from the Indian Education Resource Center in Pembroke, NC. In a short biographical sketch, Rev. Chavis is quoted as tracing his family history to Ismael Chavis, Chief of the Cheraw before they moved into the Lumbee River basin. Also, as a little side note, Reverend Dawley Maynor was taught the words EPTA TEWA NEWASIN by his great grandmother in the early 1900's. This phrase was studied by a noted linguist. It was concluded, by this researcher, that these words were Siouan in origin. They mean, "Creator, We Love You." Arvis

As stated above, by 1738, the Cheraw were already living in Catawba country. Arvis, I would love to see documents and or sources that predate the information that I have posted showing North eastern N.C. as the originating area. All of the Lumbee historians and researchers in the past have not been able to show anything like this, and I have atleast ten separate pieces of their work, beginning in the 1970's. The Lumbee leadership intentionally misleads their own people, and they never complete genealogy charts to their fullest potential. They always stop at the 1800 mark, and never take the people back further, because it would begin to show the surnames "actual" origins. Again, there is a report done years ago on this subject that is located here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCTuscarora/

--Roskerah 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My brother or sister. Part of the Cheraw may have been living with the Catawba at that time. But, remember the quote by Margaret Brown. The Croatan were once part of our people but left to escape the plague? Catawba history tells us that a part of the Cheraw merged with the Catawba for about 12 years, but left to reestablish their own identity. It is a documented fact that the Cheraw sold their lands in South Carolina and part of that group merged again

with the Catawba (the Browns, Harris, but a greater part of that group along with the Keyauwee etc. came into Robeson County. In fact, the Catawba language now being researched/reborn today is actually the Cheraw dialect of the Catawba language. With reports from the SC Gazette, maps from explorers such as John Herbert, etc., it is evident that a great number Siouan related tribes migrated a few dozen miles up the PeeDee and settled in the Lumbee River basin. BTW, the Quicks were also Marlboro, SC natives. I won't debate this any further for you in this forum. We people of the Lumbee basin need to discuss our disagreements in private because when we air them in public it castes our people in a bad light. Even the bible said, "Don't cast your pearls before Swine (this article is hogwash)" :>) Arvis

Next, the Chavis name has been connected to the Saponi, though remnants of the Saponi ended up moving onto the Tuscarora rez, which is how the two are connected today. There are Chavis graves located on the Indian Woods(Tuscarora Rez) today. Locklear has always been known as Tuscarora. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/lowriehistory.html --Roskerah 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the evidence of a Locklear connection to Tuscaroras? I have heard that Locklear is supposedly a Tuscarora word, but this seems unsupportable. It's a French surname that shows up in early VA colonial records.Verklempt

I can't answer the "ultimate" origin of Locklear, but from the 1740's onward pertaining to our people in Robeson, the name is associated with Tuscarora primarily. Atleast pertaining to the Robert Locklear who wrote his will in 1749 from Edgecombe County, and his children. His descendants all moved to the Robeson area, and eventually began marrying into the Lowries , and other surnames from the same areas in northeastern N.C. All of the Locklears from here today, descend from Robert's descendants. Take alook at the Lowrie history pages, and it will explain how the people marryed and remarryed continuously. This link will also let you see the "Locklayer" meaning "holdfast" in the Tuscarora language, that you referred to previously.--Roskerah 04:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources indicate that Chavers/ Chavis originated among "Portuguese" (Indian) slaves from Brazil and/ or the Caribbean. They were brought to NC. Other sources say that it came from French Huguenots who mixed with the Tuscarora. Either way in North America they first resided at Indian Woods Tuscarora Reservation, and married into the Tuscarora. The Locklear surname might have also been French in origin, mixed with Tuscarora. -- David

Which sources say what?Verklempt 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Lumbee are not Native Indians...

Then what kind of language is this?

http://www.native-languages.org/lumbee.htm

I have already mentioned this source, but no one responded.

Here it calls the language Algonquian; excerpt:

English (Français) Lumbee

One (Un) Weembot

Two (Deux) Neshinnauh

Three (Trois) Nishwonner

Four (Quatre) Yauonner

Five (Cinq) Umperren

Woman (Femme) Crenepo

Water (Eau) Umpe

White (Blanc) Wopposhaumosh

Red (Rouge) Mishcosk

Black (Noir) Mowcottowosh

And would anyone please comment on this:

Lumbee historian Adolph Dial made the case that the Croatans and their English guests were among the ancestors of today's Lumbee Indians, who resurfaced some 50 years later speaking English, practicing Christianity, and sporting the same last names many of the colonists had brought with them.

This source doesn't look like a fly-by-night website, but seriously scholarly stuff, and it has plenty of references and links to more material.

By the way, I do happen to know that the Powhatan word for woman is the same (crenepo)... The other words are not identical, though... Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The word list is entirely speculative. The author has taken some Indian words and called it part of the "Lumbee language", without offering any historical evidence that any Lumbee ancestors ever spoke those words.

Adolph Dial was reiterating the story told by Hamilton McMillan back in 1885. It doesn't get any more plausible through retelling. Suffice to say that McMillans claims about name similarity are very weak at best.Verklempt 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a "speculative" list, someone sure did their homework. As I said, the word given for "woman", crenepo, is identical with the Powhatan word, but is not shared by any other Algonquian language (many of which have instead words that are actually cognate with English "squaw")... However, the word given for "water", umpe, is recognisably Algonquian, and is cognate with the words for water used by tribes north of the Powhatan, from Maryland to Maine, but not the Powhatan themselves, who used the word "Sekwahanna" instead. That is just what you would expect for an independent language - some words agree with Powhatan, others agree with other relatives in the family. So do you say this entire website about the "Lumbee language", with lots of scholarly links, is a fraud then? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not difficult to find a book with words in it. But nobody has shown that Lumbee ancestors actually used these words. All the surviving evidence indicates that they were English speakers.Verklempt 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is totally speculative. The Lumbee "leaders" and "scholars" have gone to great lengths, attempting to validate their Siouan claims. In the 1930's, the U.S. government sent a man named Pearmain to Robeson, for the purpose of studing our people. In his report, he mentions being told of my great grandmother Lottie Lowry, who evidently spoke some form of Indian language. Which one, nobody in the family remembers due to the fact that she died in 1934. But, given her genealogy, ( http://tribalpages.com/tribes/roskerah ) it is easiest to assume that it was Tuscarora that she was speaking.

Ella Deloria supposedly accrued a list of words still spoken in the 1940's when she was here, but that list has never been produced. And then there are other oral traditions of different people speaking a language over the years, but again no proof.--Roskerah 17:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbee language????

I understand the Lumbee name being used a label for a group of people who have lost much of their oral history, language, and culture-- but come on! There is no such thing as "the Lumbee language." There is a local dialect, and a few words (mostly expressions) that are unique to the people (Tuscarora), but don't rip others off! The so-called Lumbee love to "borrow" their new culture from others, mostly the Lakota (I guess because they have been told they are Cheraw, or Eastern Siouan, they think it is the same as Lakota/ Sioux out west). In addition to numerous other forms of "borrowing," the Lumbee even use the Lakota medicine wheel for their logo. Maybe they should learn about their true culture-- Tuscarora. Then there might be more validity....

Lumbee are not the only one to do that sort of thing. To borrow and blend from various tribal cultures is known as "pan-Indianisn." That's mainly because the government needs to see stereotypes in order to accept "Indianness." The Lakota are Plains, therefore they are more stereotypical than people who stayed behind in the Eastern swamplands. Lumbee are descended from stragglers from the relocations who ran into the swamps, plus varous other grouplets such as fur traders. Lumbee are not and never were pure anything. They are like the Chesapeake bay Retriever dog, a blend of many things. Their primary Indian-ness is Algonquian, which puts them in with Nantikoke, "Moors," and other mid-Atlantic mixtures. They really are tri-racial in ancestry. As for the language, it has a lot of Gaelic loans to it, and it is a relatively recent blend of various bits and pieces. Saying "Tuscarora" is too simple. JBDay 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering what evidence you are using to indicate that their (our) primary Indian-ness comes from Algonquian blood? Personally everything I have ever seen indicates a primary Tuscarora origin and perhaps a small amount of Eastern Siouan as well.

I am also curious to know what evidence there is "PROVING" that every single (certainly there are quite a few) Lumbee/Tuscarora is of tri-racial ancestry? How do you "KNOW" that this is the case?Bobby Hurt 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your questions the way you wrote them. JBDay 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on the Tuscarora connection

Chwe'n/hello, I would like to follow up on what David Webb added, in that the predominent blood of the Lumbee being Tuscarora. The story of the Lumbee, and the mystery surrounding that name is one of the most confusing stories of U.S. history, but all of these different opinions comes by no accident.

Our history has been changed so many times since 1885 by so called government sponsored "historians", it is no wonder why it is hard for peole to believe anything. There has been a concerted effort by the State of North Carolina, and subsequently the Federal Government, to keep the Tuscarora lineage hidden, only to keep land claims from popping up, when, and if, Tuscarora were recognized again in the State.

On Feb. 10, 1885, Hamilton McMillan had passed the Croatan Act, which designated our people Croatan, a previously unknown tribe of "friendly Indians" that once lived on the Roanoke River. ( The "friendly" Tuscarora were given a reservation in 1717 of the Roanoke River) Two days later, on the 12th of Feb, 1885, Mr. McMillan was quoted in the Fayetteville Observer, saying that our people thought of Croatan as a village, and that they were actually Tuscarora. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1885observer.html

Another point of confusion has been the connection between our people and the "Lost Colony", which the first name Croatan was based in part upon. The government has always known what happened to atleast some of the colonists, but they have chose to keep the Colonists "lost" because of the fact that is was the Tuscarora who took in atleast some of them, and this, along with the fact that our people descend from both Tuscarora and the Colonists, is a big motive behind the cover-up. ("Lost Colony in Fact and Legend", By F. Roy Johnson w/ Thomas Parramore as guest author of the "Tuscarora Story" Part 2, pages 48-59" published 1983, ISBN 0-930230-46-9)

Take a look at this chronology, which will answer even more questions that have always been thrown our way. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/TuscaroraChronology.html

--Roskerah 04:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm D.F. Lowry. I am a direct descendant of Priscilla Berry, part-Tuscaroran great granddaughter of Henry Berry, who is on the ship's register of JW's ship. I realize that oral history does not measure up academically to written records but that is all some of us have, and its good enough for me.

As far as tied mule incidents- why would anyone expect there to be official public records of extortion. Oral history has it that these incidents did not go to court as the Indian suffering the extortion knew he had no chance in court. It seems specious to me to deny the oral record based upon lack of a written record- "there are no records of tied mule incidents therefore they likely did not happen".

The WP article records the tied mule stories, and points out that they are not documented in the records. It doesn't say they never happened. I don't see a problem here.Verklempt 02:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain the problem I see. Your statement above neutrally conjoins two propositions with the conjunction "and". The statement in the WP article conjoins the same two propositions with the conjuntion "however": "However", as in "by contrast"; "by contrast", as in "setting in opposition"; "oppose" as in "to be in conflict with". This is not a neutral stance on a pair of propositions which are obviously not necessarily mutually exclusive. All Best, D.F. Lowry

I think you have a point re NPOV. Consequerntly, I have removed the word "however," and attempted to clarify what is oral transmission and what is documented. After thinking about your argument, I'm wondering if you know of court records in which a Lumbee ancestor is charged by a white neighbor of livestock theft? Take all such charges, and then check them against land loss records. If there were a land loss following upon a livestock theft charge, then you would have the beginning of a case for a tied mule incident. But I've never seen this myself at the archives. That's why I'm skeptical of Sider's stories.Verklempt 03:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Question: Verklempt, I noticed that the "dispute" tag has been removed from the article, but why is this? There is still a very large dispute, because the article is still one sided, and the information that myself and others have posted, contradict much of what the article currently says.

The documents stating Tuscarora as the origins, predates most of what this site uses as citations, so why has this new information been dismissed? I will admit that "some" of my writing comes from my own POV, but I have given citations for a majority of what I have posted. Even with the limited amount of information that I have given, this information still contradicts what many of the past historians and writers that you have as sources, profess. Even some of the sources that you list agree with what I have written, though these things have not been posted.

I say all of this to ask, are you trying to verify what I have posted, or do you not have any intention to use what I have posted at all? This information, in my own thinking, should be used to edit many other articles on this site. The "Henry Berry Lowrie" page, the "Croatan" page, and the "Tuscarora" page, just to name a few.--Roskerah 15:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this information that was removed will find its way back to the Lumbee page, as it is supported by a wealth of credible sources. Jas392 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple spelling errors

Couple spelling errors in the article as it now stands: (1) Gibralter for Gibraltar; (2) Daring-do for derring-do.

Lumbee flag / logo

There is a flag image on Commons that is supposedly a Lumbee flag but lacks source or further description. Since it has been removed from the article, I add it here for reference: File:Bandera Lumbee.png

The current official logo of the Lumbee tribe can be seen here: [3] -- Himasaram 01:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the source of the above flag: [4] Look at the mid section of this page. Direct link to the image: [5] -- Himasaram 06:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land Grants to James Lowry II from King George II

What is the basis for the statement in the WP article that McMillan's claim of grants to James Lowry II are false? McMillan claimed the deeds were extant at the time of his writing. Is WP author trying to falsify the claim because the deed or record of issuance is no longer extant or has not been found? If so, is it typical for historians to make truth-value statements on the basis of a lack of data, or is there some positivist reason for saying McMillan's claim is false? A reference to a positive record that states explicitly that no land grants were issued in NC in either 1732 or 1738 should suffice. Sincerely, D.F. Lowry

Hoffman, Margaret M. Colony of North Carolina (1735-1764), Abstracts of Land Patents, Volume I. Roanoke Rapids, N.C.Verklempt 04:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So, the WP article statement "However, no land grants were issued during these years in North Carolina", should really say that "However, there is no record of land grants from King George II being issued during these years (excluding 1732) in North Carolina in this particular reference book, although McMillan claimed extant deeds in the hands of ...". Once again, you cannot falsify a proposition by the absence of data. Best, D.F. Lowry

I think you're picking nits here. The land grants are entered in a book that you can read at the archives. The pages are numbered. It is the same book that McMillan would have looked at if he had actually done the research. No grants were made during the years that McMillan said they were. The author I cited is the recognized expert,a state archivist. The burden of proof is on McMillan, and he offers no evidence that would counter the documentary sources. Where did McMillan claim that deeds were extant? I think you might be misreading him.Verklempt 09:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, its in p. 60, exhibit CC of O.M. McPherson's _Indians of North Carolina_. Exhibit CC is by Weeks, Exhibit C is McMillan, hence my mistake. http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/mcpherson/mcpherson.html#p60

An assumption is being made that the reference _Abstracts of Land Patents_ is complete. I'm too ignorant to know whether grants patents and deeds are all the same thing, if not, this too could be a problem. I know that deeds were given throughout the history of America, patents not. I'm picking nits because the logic is faulty, WP author is making alot of assumptions and arguing based on absence of data. It is OK to say that the Abstracts of Land Patents calls into doubt McMillan's claim, it is quite another to use the book to assign a truth-value of 'false' to McMillan's claim. Best, D.F. Lowry

I think you hve a good point about the language. It should be rewritten for NPOV. I suspect that Weeks's reference reflects his misunderstanding of McMillan. My hunch is that McMillan told Weeks that Mr. [??] (I forgot the guy's name) held the old Lowry land, and Weeks misunderstood him to mean that Mr. ??? held the patent document.

The patent book at the archive does seem to be complete, in that the pages are numbered and there is no indication that any are torn out. This would have been McMillan's reference too, if he really did ever check it. McMillan had some eccentric notions of evidence, to put it politely. I think he invented the 1732 date.

Given that James Lowrie lived until 1810, and given the birth years of his chldren, it is extremely unlikely that he was of age to obtain a patent in the year that McMillan gives. Furthermore, the NC archivist I cited says in her forward that no patents were granted that year. There is no indication of record loss among these old patents between 1885 and her publication date. The only plausible conclusion is that McMillan is wrong.Verklempt 21:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that James Lowrie lived until 1810... That would be James Lowrie III, given some of the land by his father, James II, the grantee.

There is no indication of record loss... My point is that we don't know that all grants are recorded, which precludes loss.

My hunch is that McMillan told Weeks that Mr. [??] (I forgot the guy's name) held the old Lowry land... The reference is: The deeds for these grants are still extant and are in the possession of Hon. D. P. McEachin, of Robeson County, North Carolina, the Mr. was an Hon., the deed was held by a judge, perhaps for safekeeping, perhaps fortuitously. Additionally, McPherson also seems to be under the impression that the 1732 deed was extant, as seen on p. 17 of the reference. The only plausible conclusion is that all three of these men knew of written evidence of at least the 1732 land grant, and knew where to find it. Cheers, D.F. Lowry

I know that the 1732 date of these mysterious grants has always been thrown around, but I wonder why the Lumbee themselves don't produce these documents? In the "settlement pattern study", on page 68, it says that the first grant to James Lowry Jr. was on December 11, 1770 (Bladen Deeds, Book 20, page 575 Secretary of State Land Grants) in the "Mill Prong" area.

It also goes on to say that James was found on the Edgecombe County militia list in 1750, and that Henry O Berry had his first grant in 1748. (Land Grants, Bladen County, File 274, Book 5, page 298, October 8, 1748, Secretary of State Land Grant Division) --Roskerah 14:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take Mr Lowry's point that we can never prove a negative--the non-existence of the hypothetical grant. But the evidence against the grant is powerful. Why would a grant not be recorded in the book with all of the other grants? I've never seen any evidence of un-recorded grants. I read McMillan as talking about James II, not James III. I'm not sure what to make of Weeks's claim, but I don't give it much credence. His article is a shameless rip-off of McMillan. I'm sure that someone held a deed for the old Lowrie plot in the 1890s, but why would that person have the original grant? Those grants were recorded in a book that resides at the archives. The Lumbee tribe no longer claims this 1732 date. Of the tribe's hired researchers, I believe that Robert Thomas was the first to debunk it. Wes White also debunked it. As Chris noted, James Lowrie was still in Edgecombe in 1750. Henry Berry appears to have been a speculator, and there is no indication that he ever lived in Bladen before he sold the land.Verklempt 15:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it says that the first grant to James Lowry Jr. was on December 11, 1770 If this is the same James Lowrie in Heinegg's Lowrie geneology, with mention of a 1770 grant, that would be James III, not James Jr.

James was found on the Edgecombe County militia list in 1750 This is consistent with the family history handed down to me. James Jr. stayed, James III moved. Its nice when there is consistency.

Why would a grant not be recorded in the book with all of the other grants? I don't know, good question. From p. 17 of McPherson: They held their lands in common and land titles only became known on the approach of white men.

His article is a shameless rip-off of McMillan. Argumentum ad Hominem.

The Lumbee tribe no longer claims this 1732 date. I don't really have a dog in this fight for recognition and land claims, so I am not interested in political expedience. Besides, I'm clear across the country and cannot afford to fly out there to simply update my enrollment in the tribe. I expect to be dropped imminently from the tribal rolls. So be it. However, I do wish the Lumbee good fortune in their struggle. All Best, D.F. Lowry

I respect your point about argument ad hominem. But I think that one does need to weigh the validity of the various sources. Weeks eventually became a respected professional historian. But when he wrote about the Croatans, he was a grad student who was essentially plagiarizing McMillan. There is no indication that Weeks did any original research, beyond reading McMillan and perhaps communicating with him directly. McMillan himself makes a number of rather dubious claims, and seems to believe every wacky diffusionist theory that he has ever heard. I personally don't consider either one of them a reliable source on this topic. While they were both cited extensively for a while, for the last three decades the Lumbee tribe itself--as well as the connected scholarly researchers who've looked at this data--have quietly dropped the early McMillan grant story. And for good reason--it cannot be substantiated, and appears to conflict with all of the extant documentary evidence.Verklempt 22:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, its grad students who actually do the bulk of the work. Maybe it was different back then. There are certainly many more references than McMillan in exhibit CC. I don't have access to the "debunkers'" works. I wish I did. If I take Heinegg's compilation of Lowrie records as what is extant, together with what Chris wrote, I see nothing that contradicts what my relatives have told me of my ancestral history. Furthermore, it does not appear that the McPherson report uses 'deed' and 'patent' interchangeably, so I'm not convinced that the existence of one implies the existence of the other. Maybe the social sciences does have a much higher number of charlatans than my field. I tend to take things at face value, assume folks are honest, and assume that the volume of available data diminishes with time. Best, D.F. Lowry

Note to Mr. Chris (Roskerah?) I looked on your website geneology pages and found we are not on the same page regarding James Lowrie terminology. The genealogy handed down to me starts with Judge James Lowry, so I am one James out of register with everyone else. I apologize to all for any confusion I may have caused. Sincerely D.F. Lowry

No need to appologize, I was at one time, in a constant state of confusion with the James Lowrie genealogy. So where do you and I connect as relatives? Please answer by Email.--Roskerah 20:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscarora Hypothesis

Though I appreciate this addition to the article, I must protest the wording that you have chose. To say that the Tuscarora connection is only a "hypothesis", is not a fair assesment, especially given the amount of information already given that takes the connection way beyond the "hypothetical" realm.

Next, in the language, you wrote that there is a " significant minority of the Robeson County people today claim descendance from the Tuscarora tribe." Question: What constitutes a "significant minority"? There are thousands of people on the Tuscarora rolls here, some of which are on the rolls of the Lumbee aswell.

Next, you wrote; "There is some evidence suggesting that there could be Tuscarora descendants among the Robeson county population." This statement is very vague, and the evidence already given shows that there "are" Tuscarora here; not just "could be". Your statement may lead people to believe that the connection has no sound basis, and that it is seen as only legends. Also, to say that it was only democratic opponents of the Lowries", that wrote about the Tuscarora connection, is very misleading, and wrong to say the least.

Next, it was the 1920's when the Mohawk began to come here to re-teach the people the culture, and they continued "through" the 1940's. Question: When you first posted this part of the article, didnt you have that the Mohawk were teaching the songs and dances? If so, why was that part removed?

Lastly, the government has not disallowed the Tuscarora from applying for recognition, they only use the Lumbee Act as a reason why they won't list Tuscarora as "active petitioners".

Please take these things into consideration, and edit the article in such a way that truely reflects the information posted in the "talk" section. --Roskerah 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first draft. Let's make it better. 1) The fact that people disagree about Robeson Indian ancestry means that all of the various origins propositions are "hypotheses." But I agree with you that to single out the Tuscarora hypothesis and only label it as such is perhaps to devalue it relative to the competing hypotheses. Perhaps the solution is to present all of the various origins hypotheses in the same section, instead of having them presented chronologically as they are now. Or another way is to make sure that each hypothesis is labeled as such, so as not to engage in POV towards any individual one. 2) The "significant minority" term is not substantiated, but is there any question that more Robesonians self-ID as Lumbees than Tuscaroras? I thought that would be uncontroversial. Perhaps I was wrong. 3) To conclude that some Robesonians are indeed Tuscarora descendants would be to go beyond the published literature, wouldn't it? 4) The same with the date of the first Mohawk connection. Do you have evidence of a 1920s contact? 5) Re the conservative Democrats and the Lowries--my understanding is that the two ministers, Giles Leach, and Mary Norment are the earliest Tuscarora hypothesists. All were Conservative Democrats, and opponents of the Lowries. I don't understand what you think is wrong here.Verklempt 17:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - 1) That is a good idea. This way, it will be easier to "weed through" each theory, and eventually see how each is either plausible, or not.

2) Yes, most people "self-ID" as Lumbee here, but, regardless of their current beliefs, if these same people were to dig deep enough into their past, their history would descend from Tuscarora. Regardless of this though, let's use some other descriptive terms other than "significant minority". How about "Some", or "Many", or something of the sorts. My own preference is "Many", because of the fact that, regardless of what context, thousands of people claiming Tuscarora here, are "Many". 3) I don't understand how you can say this. The government acknowledged that there were atleast 22 half or more full blood Tuscarora here, http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/ottletter.html . Also, the other published items all say that we "descend" from Tuscarora, so wouldnt that in itself mean that we are Tuscarora "descendants"? 4) Malinda Maynor states this in her dissertation. Page 194, she states; "... Chief Taho-wadi-heuto, or Thomas W. Shaw of Rome New York, was guiding the "Original 22's" council in this move. Shaw's home location implies that he was MoHawk, a member of the same tribe that helped the Brooks Settlement establish the Longhouse in the 1920's". Oral tradition indicates that one of the Chiefs from the 1920's was named "Chief Snow" 5) Actually, Townsend was one of the earliest well known writers. He wrote the "Swamp Outlaws", and the "Harpers Weekly" article in 1872. Norment's "Lowrie History" was first published in 1875. Also, there is other evidence even earlier than 1872.

During the French and Indian War, there were 50 Tuscarora who volunteered to help N.C. at Fort DuQuence. Of these 50, we know of atleast two, who our people descend from here. In 1760, Thomas Kersey, and John Rogers made public claims for their taking part in the War under the Command of Capt. Hugh Waddell. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/KerseyColonialPage.html http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/JohnRogersColonialRecord.html This can be further verified in part, within F. Roy Johnson's "The Tuscaroras" Volume II, page 187. --Roskerah 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Okay. 2) Okay. 3) It my opinion would be correct to say that many people claim descent from Tuscaroras. But it would violate NPOV for the article to take any side in the origins debate. 4) Okay. 5) Townsend's source for the Tuscarora hypothesis was Giles Leitch. The only other pre-1872 data point that I know of is the letter from the two ministers that I mentioned.Verklempt 18:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Regarding number 3, how would a government document be in violation of the NPOV rule? That document was not coming from my standpoint, or yours. this is also the case with the other documents posted. How is that "taking sides"? Regarding number 5, How do you know that Leitch was the one that told him this? Townsend came in contact with numerous people while here, and he could have obtained information from all of them. My Great Grandfather, O.S. Hayes was talked about in the Swamp Outlaws, and he could have very well told him certain things. My point is that we just don't know. There are references to earlier Newspaper articles from the 1860's, but I have never seen these. That do you think of the Kersey and Rogers links? Have you seen these before?

--Roskerah 20:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(3)On the federal letter, I think you have a good point. It is a valid data point, and thus referencing it would not be POV. But the other issue in WP policy is that a citation has to be verifiable, and citing a primary archival source in the article would probably be considered original research, which is against policy. I enjoy discussing and debating original research with you here on the talk page, but we need to keep our conversations distinct from the article, which is supposed to be built on published sources instead of original research. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, so maybe we need a more informed opinion from an old Wikipedia hand. (5) If my memory is correct, Townsend cites a "Mr. Leech" as his source for the Indian origin in one of his articles, and describes him as a lawyer, about a conversation in Mr. Leech's office. I don't have any hard evidence that this was Giles Leitch. I think you're correct that there could have been other sources that Townsend did not cite. On the other hand, Townsend appears to be citing to a conservative group when he discusses the conversation in Mr. Leech's office. (I don't have my copy of Townsend at hand, and I couldn't find a transcription online, so I apologize for working from memory.)

On the John Rogers source, you have a guy with a very common name who served in the British colonial forces fighting the French at Fort Duquesne. How does this relate to Tuscarora ancestry for the Robeson people? I'm not sure I understand what you make of it. On the Thomas Kersey page, the graphic does not load, so I didn't get to see it. Please let me know if it gets fixed.Verklempt 22:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Here is an excerpt from "Swamp Outlaws":THE INDIAN RACE OF THE LOWERYS

The question ensues, whence came the Indian blood of the Lowerys? who are by general assertion and belief partly of Indian origin.

Why should they and their blood relatives show Indian traces while Scuffletown [p.46] at large is mainly plain, unromantic mulatto.

There were two sets of aboriginese in North Carolina--the Cherokees of the west, mountainous Carolina, who removed at a comparatively recent period to the Indian Territory and of whom several remnants remain in the extreme western corner or pocket of the State, numbering 1062 in Jackson county alone.

Judge Leech, of Lumberton, says that he saw a Cherokee once who resembled Patrick Lowery so close that he called out, "Is that Patrick?"

Besides the Cherokees there was the Atlantic coast confederacy, led by the Tuscaroras and abetted at the great massacre of 1711 by the Hatteras Indians, the Pamilicos and the Cotechneys.

These Indians, after a determined resistance to the whites, which resulted in scaring the Baron De Graff, the Swiss founder of Newbern, out of the New World, accepted a reservation of lands in Halifax and Bertie counties, near the Roanoke River.

They emigrated to New York and joined the Five Nations a few years afterward, being thought worthy in prowess to be admitted to that proud confederacy, but they held the fee simple of their lands in North Carolina until after the year 1840.

Some persons of the tribe must have remained behind to look after these lands, and among these, as will be seen hereafter, was the grandfather of the Lowerys.

The pride of character of the Tuscaroras was such that the Cherokees, Creeks, and other tribes joined the whites to subjugate them, and Parkman says that the Tuscaroras were of the same generic stock with the Iroquois and conducted the southern campaigns of those Five Nations.

Hildreth says that they were reputed to be remnants of two Virginia tribes, the Manakins and Manahoas, hereditary enemies of Captain John Smiths's Powhatan.

They burned the Survey General, who had trespassed on their lands, at the stake, and were in turn partly subjected to slavery by the militia of South Carolina. Eight hundred of them were sold by their Indian enemies to the whites of the Carolinas at the one time, and in 1713 most of those at liberty retired through the unsettled portions of Virginia and Pennsylvania to Lake Oneida, New York.

This criminal code, enforced against Allan Lowery, the father of Henry Berry Lowery, the outlaw, has had the result of making Robeson county the seat of a fierce warfare for revenge.

Persons curious about the severity of this code may see a digest of it in Hildreth, Colonial series, vol. II., pp.271-275.

The Tuscaroras, in their prime, had 1,200 warriors in North Carolina.

In 1807 they brought a tract from the Holland Land Company with the proceeds of their North Carolina lands, and it was about this period that the ancestor of the Lowerys removed from Halifax to Robeson county.

And another: """One evening at Lumberton I sat in the office of Judge Leech, half a dozen gentleman present, and they described old Allen Lowery. The disposition generally manifested by the white people of Robeson county is to put little stress upon the murder of this old man, but to ascribe the crimes of Henry Berry Lowery's band to lighter cause and to separate the motive of revenge altogether from his offenses.

"The Lowerys," said one of the persons present, "were always savage and predatory. By conducting a sort of swamp or guerilla war during the Revolution they accumulated considerable property, and at the close of that war [p.48] were landholders, slaveholders and people of the soil. Then they grew dissipated during the time of peace, and their land was levied upon to pay debts. Being Indians, with an idea that their ancestors held all this land in fee simple, they could not understand how it could be taken from them, and for years they looked upon society as having robbed them of their patrimony."

"Yes," said one present, "Allen Lowery brought me a case against a man who wished to sell a piece of property he had formerly owned, and he couldn't be made to understand that the man had a good title for it. When they were holding the examination, just before they shot him in 1865 the old man pleaded the extenuation of the plunder found in his house that he had never been given fair play but had been cheated out of his land. He said that his grandfather had been cut across the hand in the Revolution, fighting for the State, and that the State had cheated all his family. He had the Indian sentiment deep in him, of having suffered wrong, and imparted it to all his sons. Here is Sink (Sinclair) Lowery with the same kind of notions to this day. He said a little while ago, 'We used to own all the country around here, but it was taken from us somehow.'" --Roskerah 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Regarding part of 3, do you mean "verifiable" as in having been referenced in some form of writing "after" the original work? If that is the case, every piece of Tuscarora evidence that I have provided has been written about, and referenced, by many scholars, but most have dismissed the significance of them over the years, choosing to concentrate on the Cherokee, or Cheraw theories.
  - Regarding 5, if you are refering to Swamp Outlaws, here it is: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/files/The_Swamp_Outlaws.htm
  - Regarding John Rogers, the significance is that he was one of the fifty Tuscarora volunteers that fought at Duquesne, and that he, and Thomas Kersey are ancestors of many Tuscarora and those who claim Lumbee today. In 1778, John Rogers was a Chief on the Bertie County Reservation. In the settlement Pattern Study,on page 148 it says:

Petiton of Whitmell Tufdick, and the rest of the Indians of the Tuscarora Nation living in Bertie County.

That whereas at a former Assembly held at Newborn in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy eight you were pleased to Pass an Act... for securing the Tuscarora Indians, and other claiming under the Tuscarorah, in the possession of their lands...We your unfortunate Petitioners still labour under many of the Inconviences and hardships which you in your great goodness intended to remedy by the said Act..."

Signed: Whitmell Tufdick William Roberts William Blount John Randolph Billey Pugh Lewes Tufdick West Tufdick Walter Gibson Thomas Thomas James Mitchell John Roggers Benjamin Smith John Pugh"""

As you can see, most if not all of the headmen had non-native names by this time, so that in itself does not disprove that these men were not Tuscarora. With John Rogers being given the rank of Sergeant, leads me to believe that he was already someone with a Chiefs title at the time of Duquesne. The Colonists would often give headmen of native tribes higher ranks than the regular warriors. Another example is Nick Cusick(Tuscarora of NY), who was made an officer, and was aid to Lafayette during the American Revolution. By the way, the Kersey link is fixed.--Roskerah 04:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Tuscarora "connection" changed to "faction"? To use faction is misleading, because it leads one to assume that the Tuscarora here are a "faction" of the Lumbee. This is not so, because to be a faction of the Lumbee, means that the Lumbee predates Tuscarora, which is not the case. I vote that the caption be reverted back to "connection".--Roskerah 02:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your criticism of the word "faction." However, to substitute the word "connection" is to imply a WP endorsement of this hypothesis over the compteting hypotheses. I think the NPOV solution here is to return to the original word: "hypothesis."Verklempt 01:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

I restored the intro to the way it was a few days ago. It had been changed to emphasize the tribe's "Indianness", but I think the tone was all wrong. It implied that at some period the Lumbee were a "purer" Indian tribe before things like "cultural assimilation" and "miscegeny" interfered. It also played down their African American heritage, which, as noted above, may be based more on internalized racism than fact.

I agree the intro may need to be tweaked. I'm willing to grant that the Lumbee are a Native American tribe (in the very least, they are called one today). But let's compare this to another example: no one disputes the Seminole are a "real" Indian tribe, but that does not mean that before interference from whites and blacks they had a purer culture that has since been lost. Quite the opposite; the Seminole nation was only created centuries after Old Worlders had come to America, and the tribe absorbed a great deal of them (we have an excellent article on the Black Seminoles.) The Seminoles don't have a unique language; they speak Creek and English, and they only came to their ancestral homeland of Florida centuries after other Indians and Old Worlders had been there already. Does saying this imply they aren't a "real" Indian tribe? Of course not. Admitting that the Seminole tribe has cultural and genetic influence from whites, blacks, and different Indian groups is a statement of fact and a testimony to their nation's uniqueness and versatility. I think the case is similar with the Lumbee, though unfortunately much discussion of their past and modern identity is lost behind speculation about their history.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity

I've seen a couple of places in this discussion where the objectivity of Campisi is questioned. Then I go and look up on the web about Virginia Easley Demarce and I find "...Dr. Virginia Easley DeMarce, a historian and former president of the National Genealogical Society who works for the Office of Federal Acknowledgment, Department of the Interior, which decides who is an American Indian." Hahahahah! This is rich! I couldn't make this stuff up! Then, you go and look up "tri-racial isolate" and you find it over and over applied to numerous tribes in the context of someone outside trying to downplay or discredit their claim of indianness!

So rich! Wikipedia has become a mouthpiece for DOI politics! Like I said, this is so surreal I couldn't make it up! Fun and Games, DF Lowry

Given that DeMarce's former affiliations are disclosed in the article, I don't see a problem here. WRT the term "tri-racial" isolate, it is well-established in the scholarly literature. The fact that someone used it in a manner you disagree with does not mean that it should be removed from this article.Pokey5945 22:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Whiz Pokey, I searched all through the ARTICLE and the DISCUSSION and I'm the only one who's DISCLOSED that she's DOI. WRT to the term "tri-racial" isolate, the fact that it is used over and over and over as a tool to deconstruct many tribes' heritages makes Wikipedia complicit in cultural hegemony. The fact that you don't like that I've pointed these things out does not mean there is not a problem here. If you want to keep harassing me about this and if Verklempt keeps calling discussants here illiterate, you both might want to start using your real names. First warning. DF Lowry

Sorry, you're correct, DeMarce's bio had gone missing. I added it back in. I don't mind you pointing anything out. Feel free. I don't understand your complaint about the term "tri-racial." It seems perfectly straightforward and accurate to me. I also don't understand what you're warning me about. Pokey5945 03:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of VD working for DOI in any revision of the Lumbee article. Were you lieing or just having a flight of fancy? To attack Campisi in the discussion and at the same time not point out DeMarce's affiliation is poor scholarship at best, disingenuous at worst. DF Lowry

I could be having a flight of fancy. Or you could be lying about having read every revision. Does it really matter? I don't see a relevant analogy between Campisi and DeMarce. Campisi is a hired gun who has lied on behalf of the Lumbees and other tribes who've paid him. DeMarce has never shown any sign of misconduct or overt bias in her research. Her impressive resume rather bolsters the authority of her arguments, it seems to me.Pokey5945 08:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say I read every revision? No, I searched every revision. Does it matter? Yes, it shows the lack of integrity of Pokey/ Verklempt, who has also been accused of sock puppetry elsewhere. DeMarce was a hired gun. A real piece of work too, from what I've read. DF Lowry

Do you have any evidence of problems with DeMarce's published research? I've never seen anyone demonstrate any serous errors or bias in her work. Or do you just dislike that she documents the Lumbee's African side of their ancestry?Verklempt 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've produced nothing here other than hearsay against Campisi. I've already addressed the problems with DeMarce, as have others here. That she was DOI only makes her work that much more suspect and revealing of an agenda. If you can't see that, you're beyond help and probably have no place as an editor here. I see you leave a wake of ill feelings wherever you edit on Wikipedia. What's that Yiddish phrase about getting thee a saddle?

If you're interested in documentation of problems with Campisi's research, it's easy to come up with examples. You might start with the recent exchange in Ethnohistory regardng the Houmas. Once you've read that, ask me for more examples. You still haven't specified your disagreement with DeMarce's research. I'm sensing a vague whiff of conspiracy theory about her having worked for the feds, but nothing concrete. I would also point out that your resort to ad hominem is becoming habitual, and that's quite revealing.Verklempt 00:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with you does not constitute harassment.Verklempt 04:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbee Act and lack of casinos

Just wondering: By way of the article, I have learned that the Lumbee are not a federally-recognized tribe. Would that explain why there are no major casinos on Lumbee land? If there was one, it would serve a huge market--several million people along Interstate 95 alone, from Raleigh in the north to Atlanta in the south, and with Charlotte in between. - Desmond Hobson 23:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lumbees do have federal recognition, accorded by a Congressional act back in the 1950s. But the Act explicitly states that they are not entitled to Indian welfare benefits and services. I don't know about or understand the legal mechanism by which they could be denied a casino. For any federal tribe to have gambling, the state must already allow some form of gambling. That may be the issue in NC, but I'm just guessing here.Verklempt 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lumbees don't have federal recognition, because of their bloodline and the predominance in Negro and Caucasian blood. The tests done in the 1950's and 60's, which have been previously stated in this article, examined the skulls of the Lumbee and determined them to be predominantly "African", rather than Native American.

This is just outright innaccurate. Look at the Department of Interior's response to the 1888 petition, the first petition to the feds - the Lumbee are seeking money for the Indian Normal School and the Dept. rejects it based on funding. Denail of federal recognition had nothing to do with bloodline. And these test results...come on EBC, you're better than that. Jas392 (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, The State of North Carolina is not the goverment that would "allow" for a casino. Being Federally recognized would entitle a group of Native Americans sovereign land on a federally recognized tract or area of land that would be separate from North Carolina. Hence, we (North Carolina) have Cherokee, NC and the reservation that is currently there. Because Cherokee Indians are federally recognized, they have casinos on "Cherokee Land". North Carolina doesn't come into play on this issue. However, our North Carolina Senator, Elizabetth Dole, is the Lumbee's "champion" on pushing for their recognition. Suspiciously, this looks very politically motivated: she knows that it will never be passed and yet, she gets the votes from the Lumbees. This is how it's been since the idea of federal recognition has been a subject; politicians in NC seeking the Lumbee's vote with a promise of being recognized.

Furthermore, the current bill has a clause against gaming. The Lumbee are not seeking recognition for gaming purposes. Jas392 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unsubstantiated critique of Demarce and Heinegg

Right now, the passage in question is original research. It’s also POV, e.g.: “thorough analysis”, “more often than not”, “can not be traced with certainty.” Heinegg and Demarce are well-respected and well-published genealogists. This passage does not even come close to meeting WP standards of verifiability.Verklempt 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not question the genealogical evidence presented by Demarce and Heinegg, it is their personalized interpretations of their research that they so carelessly insert all throughout the factual information that I question. This particular work is riddled with unsubstantiated heavily personalized and biased misleading statements that if not read under close scrutiny can easily be misconstrued to be facts themselves. Their credentials will not suffice as evidence that everything they say is true, in fact under a thorough critique of their work it will be seen that a large portion of what they present is pure speculation!

Although they have proven that some families (roughly a third) among Robeson County Indians at least “IN PART” originated from Virginia, for a vast majority such claims are pure “UNPROVEN SPECULATION.” Take the Locklear family (the biggest Indian family in Robeson County to date) for example. In Heinegg and Demarce’s research they trace all the Robeson County Locklears back to a Robert Locklear who owned land on the Roanoke River in the part of Edgecombe County that would later become Halifax County North Carolina. They assumed that he “MAY” be descended from a Frenchman by the name of Jacob Lockeleer in Virginia, but the verifiable trail for this family ends at Robert; yet Heinegg and Demarce blatantly state, in regards to Mary Normant claiming that a Betty Locklear was a half breed Tuscarora, that “it is more likely that they (the ancestors of the Locklears in Robeson) were already a mixture of African, European, and perhaps Native American when they came to North Carolina.” As in “THEY CAN NOT PROVE THAT THIS FAMILY CAME FROM VIRGINIA YET THEY STATE THAT THEY DID!”

This is “BY FAR” not the only time that such speculative assumptions have been presented as fact here, Heinegg and Demarce’s credentials are worthless! My statements were not original research; all I did was offer an accurate critique of well published blindly accepted propagandized POV garbage!Bobby Hurt 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Much of your recent editing does not meet the published WP standards and policies, and will have to go.Verklempt 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are correct to a certain extent; after all I am new to WP. I will definitely make an effort in the future to make sure that what edits I make properly reflect the actual (as in not your personalized interpretations of them) WP standards. On the same note, it appears that you have been here for a long time and should therefore be very familiar with the policies in place here. Therefore, you should have known better (and probably did) than to insert so many of your personal beliefs into this article! For example:

1.)"families with the same surnames as Lumbees"--without checking to see if any of the individuals mentioned could actually be tied to Robeson Indians, such a statement was completely uncalled for as well as inaccurate, 2.) Inferring that it is impossible for there to be a large portion of Indian blood represented within Robeson County Indians when it most definitely is. Such a statement is your own “UNPROVEN PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW, that absolutely does not belong in a respectable article,” 3.) “in which they described non-white residents” of Robeson as being a free colored population that migrated originally from the districts round-about the Roanoke and Neuse Rivers--The only “FREE-colored” people who came to Robeson County were Lumbee ancestors, there were other “non-whites” who were slaves or slaves that had been set free, but they were not free-colored when they got here. Your contribution is a completely inaccurate unnecessary personalized statement that has no business being on a professionally written public page, and 4.) “By 1802, the northern Tuscarora leaders felt that the emigration was complete, and that while some of their relatives had stayed behind, those people had intermarried with other races and ethnicities and were no longer tribal members.”--and this statement can be referenced how? The actual historic record indicates that there are roughly at least 1000 (and this is extremely conservative estimate) unaccounted for Tuscarora.

I am also curious to know how it is a violation to expose WP readers to such common knowledge as was illustrated by Charles F Pierce (Supervisor of Indian Schools for the Department of Interior) in 1912 when he stated (in a public federal government document) that “One would readily class a large majority of [the Lumbee] as being at least three-fourths Indian?” Who are you to dictate that Heinegg and Demarce’s highly opinionated work is the only thing that carries any weight? There is a lot of evidence that contradicts what Heinegg and Demarce theorize (some of it being from within their own heavily censored highly incomplete twisted propagandized research); therefore, what they claim is not a proven "FACT." You are entitled to believe what this one source claims if you wish (and I will admit that just like most other things, there is “SOME” truth to what they say), but you have no right to present it as being undisputable fact within this article (because their claims are heavily disputed).

From reading over your earlier replies on this talk page it is easy to see that you have continuously attempted to break down, scrutinize, and completely disregard and leave out every piece of evidence (a majority of which is located in verifiable sources) showing any Indian heritage within Robeson County; yet you won’t allow the same scrutiny to fall upon the untouchable Heinegg and Demarce work to which you so tightly cling. Your actions are extremely hypocritical Sir and you have no right to sensor a public resource in such a personalized way (i.e. POV)! The narrow minded semantic bigotry you have portrayed thus far on this talk page (and other places) is ridiculous! It is ludicrous that those editors above you have allowed you to play God on this website for as long as they have!

FYI: If you would have actually read the work that you so blindly put your faith in you would have know that according to “HEINEGG and DEMARCE”, Isaac Hammond the second (whose wife upon his death in 1822 filed a pension in 1849 stating that both his parents were Mulattoes or Mustees having no African blood in them) was the son of an Isaac Hammond, brother of Ann Hammond who was acknowledged in Bertie County court in February 1739 that she had two bastard children, race not mentioned, while indentured to John Pratt, the keeper of the ferry across the Roanoke River at Gideon Gibson’s landing

“HEINEGG and DEMARCE” also state that this same Ann Hammond (who would essentially also be a Mullato or Mustees with no African blood in her as well) was also the mother of John and Horatio Hammond (their father is unknown) who moved to Robeson County from Bertie County (John in 1768 and Horatio in 1784) and produced 16 children, founding the entire Hammonds family in Robeson County.

I appeal to the legitimate editors on this site to recognize the covert discrimination (i.e. Unequal and harmful treatment that is hidden, purposeful, and often maliciously motivated and stems from conscious attempts to ensure failure) that this anonymous individual is inflicting on your site, and put an end to it!Bobby Hurt 12:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your complaints are based on an incomplete familiarity with the relevant sources. Since original research is disallowed on WP, it's pointless to debate some of this stuff. For now, suffice to say that positive assertions need to be substantiated. I'll try to clean this up when I have more time.Verklempt 03:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You can’t be serious! Actually my friend I have spent over 300 hours analyzing and reading over the research they did in reference to Robeson County families (I had a copy of it sitting in front of me when I wrote the information above). Their work can be easily accessed on the net at the site Heinegg and Demarce so ingeniously (they are so good at what they do) labeled (www.freeafricanamericans.com) if you should ever care to check over anything I just said. Let me remind you of some things that “YOU” stated in the discussions above:

1.) However, there is basically no surviving evidence of Indian identity among the Lumbee ancestors prior to 1885. This makes it a total leap of faith to assume that they had one. Verklempt 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

2.) “Do you have any evidence of problems with DeMarce's published research? I've never seen anyone demonstrate any serous errors or bias in her work. Or do you just dislike that she documents the Lumbee's African side of their ancestry?Verklempt 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC) “

3.) You still haven't specified your disagreement with DeMarce's research. I'm sensing a vague whiff of conspiracy theory about her having worked for the feds, but nothing concrete. I would also point out that your resort to ad hominem is becoming habitual, and that's quite revealing.Verklempt 00:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that “YOU” in fact initiated this debate my friend! Isn’t “debate and discussion” what this “TALK PAGE” is here for? You certainly seemed to think so in the past! Why the sudden change of heart now? You were all about spurting off at the mouth and telling people who they are and aren’t earlier, yet you suddenly want the discussion to end when one of them calls your bluff! Is it just me or is anyone else getting a vague whiff of the hypocrisy taking place here? Your actions are becoming so habitual and that’s quite revealing!Bobby Hurt 12:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate the refs are screwed up and need to be fixed. I'd do it but I'm afraid I don't know the material well enough to sort out what goes where.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 7 changes

Could someone vet the changes and additions added to the article today? The info looks mostly good, but it looks like the citations are screwed up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protected

The page is now protected, effectively forcing a truce in the edit war. I'd like to see us have a civil, reasoned discussion about the disputed material. Who wants to start? Henrymrx (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the repeated blanking by the blocked accounts, what is being taken out is anything mentioning possible African ancestry.Verklempt (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Henrymrx, calming down the edit wars. I think such a contentious subject as this one would warrant a stepping back and taking a deep breath from everyone involved!

To Verklempt: What do you mean by "African?" There is plenty of evidence that Lumbee have ancestry from Moors/Turks/others from that area of the world. For example, Heather Locklear's middle name is Deen, an Arabic word essentially meaning "way of life," albeit far more encompassing. As with most people in this country, USAmerica, you probably mean SSWestAfrican. I believe there is both "Moorish" and SSWAfrican as well. Please do not try and find Negroid ancestry in everything, that is one reason why established tribes are kicking out Freedmen. I think that it is a poor/cruel move on their part, but when you have scum such as Outkast, five percenters by the way, and their mockery of Indians for the delight of others, who can blame the tribes for kicking the Freedmen out? Blacks move everywhere and then claim they started something they had no part of in the beginning. I have all kinds of ancestry in me, and I have many distant cousins passing as black because they have dark(er) skin. If you check the names in Melungeon lists for example, you will find many surnames that are also common among those in that very area of those that migrate to cities and pass as full black. Williams is one, there are many of them in the Carolinas. I think the freedmen ought to stay in the tribes, perhaps if the Union Army hadn't have pulled out of the South too early and abandoned Reconstructiom turning the South over to the "Redeemers," then we wouldn't be in this mess now. They did, and we are still paying for it. I think the tribes ought to tell the Feds to screw off regarding quantum and let the freedmen stay, but that's just me. Yes, the gaming money is a driving factor, although the claiming of everything with some black influence as black is as well.

Question to anyone: Above, the Holland Land Company was mentioned. Is there any connection with Holland Island in the Chesapeake Bay? My GGF William T. Bennett dissembled houses there and moved them to Cambridge Maryland, because of the sinking of the island of course. He pretty much built up the entire West End of town there. Interestingly enough, I have some letters from the Holland Island Preservation Society run by a Mr. White who had ancestors on the island as well. I also have relatives by that name whom I visited many years ago in what is now North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Mr. White was in coorespondence with both my mother and her mother, both deceased. The "Day" in my name comes from my father's father, who interestingly enough had ancestors in NC. Interestingly enough, my father's mother was a Mitchell. Enough of me for now, perhaps I can jumpstart this page.

I don't think this page is possible without personal anecdotes, especially since the topic is still in its growth stages.JBDay (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1886 Blood Committee (School)

Was there any documentation as to the criteria the committee used to determine what children were eligible for the school(s) established for Indians in NC? Did they use family genealogies?--Parkwells (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no documentation, only oral history. The committee members were pretty much all illiterate at this time. The only documentation of the committees' functioning during this time period is a single court case. There, the committee objected to admitting the children of a freedman who'd married the sister of one of the blood committee members. The committees appear to have gone purely by community reputation pirmarily, and secondarily by racial appearance.Verklempt (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But? If the people had an oral history in 1886 as being Indian (or mostly Indian) spanning back for generations, wouldn't that mean that.............could it be.............perhaps maybe....... folks knew that they were Indian despite the fact that "OTHER PEOPLE" labeled them otherwise? Bobby Hurt (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of recognition as tribal nation by Federal government

An editor has added a statement in the lead/lede about potential impact of recognition. This is not really covered by the article, and may deserve a separate article. This one is about the Lumbee group itself.--Parkwells (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about the very last sentence in the lede? I agree that it should come out, since it is pure speculation. As such, it does not deserve a separate article either.Verklempt (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Please stop adding material about escaped slaves. That is not the main point - the point is that working class white women and African men had relationships and children together. Heinegg's point and documentation is not about mostly escaped slaves. It is that in the early days of VA, white women, servants or free, chose African men as partners. Sometimes they were indentured servants who became free, as did Europeans; sometimes they were slave. The children were free because the mothers were free, and they were African Americans or people of color free in colonial VA.--Parkwells (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The speculation that Lumbees started identifying as Indians in the late 1880s because of KKK violence during Reconstruction must be sourced. There were probably many reasons, but it's not clear that this is one. They had identified as Indians before, but not under the Lumbee name. For one thing, the KKK was most active up to 1870-71. In the mid-1870s in the Deep South and South Carolina, white paramilitary groups such as the White League and Red Shirts unleashed violence against Republicans and freedmen, especially at election time, to turn Republicans out and suppress black voting. I don't know if the Red Shirts were an issue in Robeson Co. or what the voter registration and turnout rate had been there, or what was happening by the 1880s. --Parkwells (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Shirt activity in Robeson Co., although this can't be as early as you are interested in, since my grandfather was only born in '81;

http://ncmuseumofhistory.org/workshops/civilrights1/oral_pol.html David F Lowry (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info; that's an interesting perspective about the turns in history. --Parkwells (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Findings of Heinegg on Free African Americans

Please stop changing this to something that Heinegg did not state. If an editor has another source for "skeptics about Native American origins, use that". Heinegg does not say he was skeptical; he simply lays out the documentation. He did not write that Lumbee were chiefly of African ancestry; rather he pointedly stated that 80 percent of cthe free people of color in NC in censuses from 1790-1810 (which would have included Lumbee ancestors) were descended from African Americans (mixed-race) free in VA during the colonial period. Most of those families were started from the children of relationships of white women with African or African American men, and their multiracial children. Many of these families moved together and settled in groups, creating frontier communities in VA and NC, along with European migrants/neighbors.--Parkwells (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true then certain folks need to stop saying that Heinegg theorized that "LUMBEES/TUSCARORAS" come from these mixed race unions in this article, because to do so is false (or POV). So unless someone can cite exactly where Heinegg says this (as in specifically states that Lumbee/Tuscarora in Robeson are primarily of African and European origin from Virginia); I move that his work be completely removed as a source from this page.

Nevermind how certain editors might interpret his research to read (after all that would be original research wouldn't it; which is definately something Wikipedia doesn't endorse right?) Bobby Hurt (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heinegg has indeed commented on Lumbee origins, and traced them to mixed-race unions. Read Heinegg's "Introduction". It's all there. Also look at his Lowrie family chapter.Verklempt (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He notes 35 families by name in the 1768-1770 tax lists (only one was identified as Indian), and 24 families by name in the 1790-1800 census that he traces back to having some Negro or mulatto ancestry in VA or NC. These are surnames of many people identified as Lumbee. I noted more specifics. --Parkwells (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I comment further I would appreciate it if you (Parkwells) could give me a direct strait forward answer to the following question: Did Heinegg or did he not write that the Lumbee ancestors were chiefly of African American (or mixed European and African American) ancestry? (I'd have asked Verklempt as well but he has allready given a strait forward definitive answer, what's your position?)Bobby Hurt (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about my opinion. You should read Heinegg yourself, as Verklempt pointed out and I have referenced, the material is online. What I have done is try to represent what he states in his book. I don't know how many of the surnames traditionally associated with Lumbee are among those he lists - many, it appears from other reading. He identified these surnames as having origins in individuals of multiracial origin, mostly European and African. --Parkwells (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is about your opinion here (in this discussion that we are having). In your (Parkwells) first statement you said that Heinegg did not write that Lumbees are chiefly of African ancestry. Yet in the same discussion your arguing that he listed most (as 24 and definately 35 families would have been most) Lumbee families in the 1760-1800 census as being descended from African Americans. I'm confused here, because your statements from one response to the next do not paint the same picture, hence the reason why I asked you that question (just fishing for a strait forward position, it's much easier to address that way, judging by your response it appears that a strait forward discussion is not what you looking for though). Personally I am well aware (and was well aware before I asked you that question) of the fact that Heinegg specifically targets Robco people in his work (and while we're on the subject I would like to thank Verklempt for helping to point this out for me, I knew youd pop up if somebody tried to actually remove your presious Heinegg crap, well thanks anyway!).

My point being that he does specifically try to target and discredit (he even repeatedly goes out of his way to do so) the fact that Robeson county people are primarily of Indian origin despite the fact that his work is "SUPPOSED" to (as you are trying to portray it) be a non-biased overview of free African Americans in general with no particular agenda in mind. Bottom line: nobody is changing this to something that Heinegg did not state, people are just exposing him for what he was really trying to do!Bobby Hurt (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a particular view. What I meant was that Heinegg cited records that showed free people of color were of mostly European and African American descent. That is not my opinion; that is what is in his book - his findings. To me, it looked as if Heinegg started in VA with court, tax, deed, wills and land records and tried to understand how families of free people of color were formed in the colonial period. He found many that went back to the 17th and 18th centuries. Then he continued to use records to trace descendants of those families and see where they went. I certainly do not think he was targeting any group or any county since he researched many families. He quoted extensively from the original records in his book - for instance, he noted that Tom Britt was listed as Indian in a mid-1700s tax list for Bladen County, NC. (I've seen in some of the comments on this article that people say no one was listed as Indian in early NC records, but that man was.) Heinegg's findings on ancestry of Melungeons have been confirmed so far by the limited results in the Melungeon DNA Project which Jack Goins is coordinating. Perhaps some Lumbee families will find DNA analysis interesting as well.--Parkwells (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally (and I'm going off of what he says on his website here, which I would assume is the same as in his book) I do not agree with the following statement being placed in this article: "In his book he identified 35 families by name listed on the 1768-1770 tax lists for Bladen County, from which Robeson County was formed. Except for Tom Britt, who was listed as Indian, all the others were listed as mulatto. Similarly, Heinegg listed 24 "other free" families by name in Robeson County from the 1790-1800 censuses. In his book he had traced each back to persons referred to as "Negro" or "mulatto" in Virginia or North Carolina"

I've made the language in the lead more general. I thought before that you objected to the generalization.--Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To continue further with what Verklempt mentioned about the Lowrie page; Heinegg blatantly argues against the fact that the Lowries were descendants from a white man who married a half breed Tuscarora arguing that it is impossible because no records were found to indicate this (he also attacked the fact that Kerseys, Cumbos and Locklears were as well despite the fact that that had nothing to do with the Lowrie history itself, he went out of his way here and stepped beyond the bounds of unbiased presentation). The problem here is that he also has no documentation to prove otherwise, therefore making Mary Norments "the Lowrie history" the only existing evidence found on this family's geneology. I don't understand how the statement "Heinegg traced EACH back to persons refered to as Negro or Mulatto in NC or VA" can properly be used here.

It is also true that Heinegg can't trace the Jones family, the Dial family, the Brooks family, the woods family, the Clark family, the Collins family, the Cooper family, the Cox family, the Deese family, the Demery family, the Bullard family, the Freeman family, the Fuller family, the Grooms family, the Harden family, the Leviner family, the maynor family etc...(and the list goes on) at all past Robeson. So again; how saying he traced "EACH" is appropriate; I don't know?

It is also true that for a vast majority of families Heinegg states that said individual "MAY" have been the child of other said individual. In some cases he doesn't even say "May" he just lists a "Free Negro" from Virginia and then starts off talking about individuals in NC as being descended from that person without providing any documentation to verify such misleading assumptions. You will find this type of thing in the Hammonds family section, the Bell family section, the Locklear family section, the Revels family section, the Sweat family section,the Wilkins family section, the Wynn family section, the Scott family section, the Chavis family section, the Cumbo family section, the Goins family section, the Carter family section, etc.....and the list goes on.

There were certain names and families that were distinctive, such as Chavis and Cumbo, where Heinegg found descendants in VA, NC and SC. You seem to be suggesting that they should not be considered related, which seems unlikely, especially as he found records of family members along the migration route in tax and land records, for instance. Also, his work has been reviewed and found worthwhile by people far more expert than I. He documented many more families than those in Robeson County.--Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Heinegg wasn't blatantly trying to discredit Robeson County Indian claims he most definately conducted his research and presented it in a most inaccurate, careless, and inconsistant way.

Verklemp? Where can I find where Heinegg specifically mentions Lumbees in his introduction on his website? I have the Lowrie section as I printed it out about 2 years ago (along with 37 other family trees). I am aware that he blatantly attack's a Tuscarora identity in that section (without documentable basis) but I still can't find the intro you speak of, Please give a specific reference.

As I said I printed out 38 names associated with Robeson in Heineggs work, don't you think it say's something that I just put 29 of them into question? 17 of which (and some of the others I listed would also fall into this category as well under thorough critique, as I just skimmed over it) he can't even trace at all? Things are not nearly as concise as you people are "INTERPRETING (POV)" his work to be and the current article as it is now written must be changed to reflect accurate facts!

The Indian folks in Robeson (both Lumbee and Tuscarora) have a very painful history in the state of North Carolina and such careless one-sided presentation of facts as there are within this current article are most damaging and insulting to our people. Personally I will not argue to take Heineggs work out, but I will demand that it be presented accurately and fairly and not blown out of proportion in the way that it is being presented at this time! If this article is ever going to get to the point of being completely neutral and unbiased then it is essential that the Indian history of North Carolina be addressed in proper context here. The designation of Mullatoe or other free does not make a person part black in the colonial Carolinas. It does insinuate that they could have been, but it doesn not neccessarily mean that they were. In my analysis of Heineggs research I have found only one example of a Lumbee ancestor specifically stating that they were black, yet I have found numerouse examples where they stated that they weren't.

It must farther be understood that detribalized Indains in NC as a whole "were not" labeled as Indian. There is verifiable evidence that there were thousands of American Indian people residing in the Carolinas off of Indian land, yet you only find individuals here and there being regarded as Indian in source documents. Thus it is only proper to assume that the vast majority of the Native population in this region were not labeled properly. This is illustrated (as I mentioned in a previous discussion) by the fact that it is know that roughly a 100 Tuscaroras remained on the Indian Woods reservation when it was disbanded and yet "NOT ONE" Indian was listed there in source documents once that reservation was "NO LONGER LEGAL INDIAN LAND, but there were plenty of Mullatoes and other frees listed there indicating that that is what non-reserved Indians would have legally been classed as in that region (which is the same region that a vast majority of Lumbee ancestors came from)!"

Documented history indicates that there were well over 1000 non-reservated Tuscaroras living in northeaster North Carolina before that reservation was disbanded. Taking into to consideration that they would have been classed as mullatoe or other free, taking into consideration that the Lumbee ancestors who lived there (at the same time these Tuscaroras would have been there) were generally classed as Mullatoe or other free, coupled with the fact that the original affiliation handed down by Lumbee ancestors in Robeson was Tuscarora, coupled with the fact that numerous experts acknowledged repeatedly that Robco Indians "Maintained their race integrity (i.e. were pretty much indian at their core) with a small admixture with the colonial races and an even smaller admixture with other races," were considered to be mostly of Indian origin with the Negro blood "NOT" predominating (but there, and I have never denied this), were described as "there being a large majority who posses 3/4 or more Indian blood" etc... This article "MUST" be changed to reflect this "VERIFIABLE and easily CITABLE" other side of this story in order to present a "NEUTRAL/ACCURATE" wikipedia page to the readers!

Parwells; as of yet I am not sure if you are just presenting the facts as you see them or if you may have other motives here. However I will give you the benefit of the doubt and appologize for coming off as hostile as I do. You must understand that this article is about me and my family and is therefor "VERY" personal for me! I love my people and I am proud of our heritage and legacy and I do not and will not ever take litely any sort of bigotry, undermining, or any other sort of blatant attack on my people heritage and legacy!

Please do give me the benefit of the doubt. I don't have any agenda here, but believe that the recognition that has been given to Heinegg's work means it should be taken seriously. It's also possible that the very long history of your family includes more different facts than were in the traditions and oral histories. In the last 10 years I've been working on my own family and found ancestors we knew nothing about.

So lets all get real here, we can acknowledge that many Lumbees have African ancestry without trying to go beyond the realm of provability by presenting certain un-verifiable opinions (POV)arguing that they aren't largely of Indian ancestry as fact.

Fairness and neutrality is all I (and my kinsmen) am asking for here! Is that to much to ask? Bobby Hurt (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for the Tuscarora claims?Verklempt (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which particular claim are you specifically intirested in (as there are different sources for different things, some of which have allready been provided on this talk page)? I'd be happy to answer your question but you need to be more specific. Also; as an act of good faith I'd appreciate it if you could return the courtesy and point me to where Heinegg specifically mentions Lumbees in his introduction on his website (I've been looking and I can't find it)?Bobby Hurt (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website is confusing because Heinegg has continued to add information. When you click on the title of the book, Free African Americans in VA, NC and SC, the next web page shows "Foreword" by historian Ira Berlin, "Acknowledgements", etc., and "Introduction" (although this shows in black not blue, it is a link), then starting the list of names of families.

The "Introduction" is really a long overview and summary of his findings about 400 documented families, starting with five or six major findings - among them that he found no nuclear families of Indians in early records, and much evidence that free Indians joined free African American communities/settlements and married African Americans. He also noted his findings that most African Americans who were free in colonial VA were descended from white women (whom he later shows he was able to identify by name in colonial records) and African/African American men. Later he noted that a few families, among them Collins originating in SC, descended from a white planter father and enslaved mother.

He describes the migration patterns out of VA to NC and SC (and elsewhere) and includes history of early colonial society. He notes the areas where free African Americans tended to settle. There are several major sections in this part that are in bold.

One is headed "Tri-racial, Portuguese and Indian". In this he notes the Lumbees as just one of the groups that claimed Indian ancestry and that many anthropologists and others have studied. He notes some specific families whose surnames he found with individuals who were freed as slaves in mid-17th c. VA: Cumbo (gives the first variation of Emanuel Cambow), Michael Gowen, and Driggers. He notes that because these people were freed so early, they had many descendants by the time of the Revolution, and notes the number of households of free African Americans/people of color in VA, NC and SC, and even LA (with Goins/Gowen) with those surnames. He noted Robeson Co. as one of several in NC where free African Americans/people of color had settlements at the turn of the 19th c. and wrote about how they were often were well accepted on the frontier. That acceptance seemed to relate to how people described them in period accounts or court cases, where free people of color might be described as Indian or Portuguese. He also noted how some families consistently married white and became part of white communities. Heinegg's work has been well-accepted and reviewed by genealogists and historians who believe he has added important evidence about early colonial and federal period society. I am not going to try to argue about different aspects of it.--Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

While this article is about people known as Lumbees, some of the issues that affected them affected all all free people of color in NC, so editors should refrain from altering text dealing with historic issues to try to reframe all "free Negroes" or "free people of color", as they were referred to in some historic texts, as ancestral Lumbees. One person changed material having to do with the disfranchisement of free people of color by the 1835 constitutional amendment. That amendment affected all free people of color in NC, not just some ancestors of Lumbee families. All free people of color were not ancestral Lumbees.--Parkwells (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)--Parkwells (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clarified exactly what categories were available at the time each census was made, or at least free of misinformation through implication and reference to one source's controversial and minority conclusions. In particular, I'm referring to the 47/40/13 guesstimation of percentages of race based on a known flawed method. This goes for the implication attached to it as well that keeps popping up in the lead that the Lumbee were African, European and perhaps Native American. This is clearly the minority viewpoint when all things are reasonably considered and, as such, it merits neither a place in the Lead nor a dominant role on this page. Jas392 (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're jumping all over every comment I've made on this page. Please remember we are supposed to be assuming good intentions of the part of other editors. You are assuming every statement or change is somehow against Lumbees. Many editors have worked on this article and others have had a strong interest in showing some of the controversy of the history. My comment above was not about census classification of peoples in NC at all, but about edits someone had made at that time (in May) that suggested that changes to the law in 1835 were directed only at ancestors of Lumbees.--Parkwells (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to contribute to issues so that we clean this page up. Nothing personal - I don't even know you, so my comments are accordingly directed to content as opposed to individual. My argument still stands that the notion that "the Lumbee were African, European and perhaps Native American" is clearly a controversial, minority conclusion based on a known flawed method of scholarship/research when all things are reasonably considered and, as such, merits neither a place in the Lead nor a dominant role on this page. I have no problem allowing a section on the page "showing some of the controversy of the history," but that does not mean that one source with controversial conclusions merits a place in the Lead or a dominant role in the page as a whole. Jas392 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tri-racial hypothesis is supported by *all* methodologies. It's also the dominant scholarly perspective. It's not even controversial. I see no justification whatsoever for redacting it from the lead. I would recommend redacting the word "perhaps".Verklempt (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you can finally see how "perhaps" may be disparaging to an Indian tribe. I submit Template:The Lumbee are a people claimed to be native to North America and descending from the Cheraw and related Siouan-speaking tribes of Native Americans originally inhabiting the coastal regions of the state of North Carolina. Template:In 1885 the State of North Carolina recognized the Lumbee as American Indians. as the opening for the lead. It's the most accurate while not being disparaging to the people who are the subject of the page. Jas392 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheraw hypothesis is too controversial to be in the lede. How about: Template:The Lumbee are an Indian tribe in North America. This part is also problematic: Template:In 1885 the State of North Carolina recognized the Lumbee as American Indians. Actually, NC recognized the Croatans, not the Lumbees.Verklempt (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like "The Lumbee are an Indian tribe in North America." But I will have to point out that the Cheraw hypothesis is not too controversial. It can fairly say that congressional REPORTS have concluded that the Lumbee were a distinct, viable Indian community descended from Siouan speaking tribes, principally the Cheraw. Cite: Senate Report 108-213 (11/25/2003) and there are many more from both the House and Senate concluding the same in their introductory paragraphs. Also see Indian School Supervisor Pierce Report, filed with Senate on 4/4/1912; Special Indian Agent McPherson report, Doc. No. 677, 53rd Cong., 2nd Sess., prepared in 1914; Report of J.R. Swanton, Smithsonian Institute, at request of Bureau of Indian Affairs and submitted to Congress at the 1933 hearing; and Fred A. Baker Report on the Siouan Tribe of Indians of Robeson County, 7/9/1935. These congressional hearings and studies all "concluded that the Lumbee were a distinct, viable Indian community descended from Siouan speaking tribes, principally the Cheraw." Cite: Senate Report 108-213 (11/25/2003) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jas392 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I don't see why the triracial hypothesis would be "disparaging", unless one cannot bear to acknowledge African ancestry. That's usually the main objection. (2) Even the Lumbee population has been politically split over the Cheraw hypothesis, from the 1930s through to the present. You can't demonstrate that it's uncontroversial just by citing the sources that agree with it. There are plenty of sources that address the controversy, including nearly all of the current scholarly sources. I'd cite Sider and Maynor on this, for starters. (3) Now that I think about it, there may be a problem with describing the Lumbees as a tribe. The fact is that the Robeson Indian population is politically split into factions, and only some of them buy into the Lumbee origins myth. I'm not certain how to best deal with that in the lede. I think the original version that Cuchullain proposed reverting to is still the best one.Verklempt (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I have no objection to the triracial bit. The problem is when the article implicates that the Lumbee are African, European and "perhaps" Native American. Template:The article can fairly state that congressional REPORTS have concluded that the Lumbee are a distinct, viable Indian community descended from Siouan speaking tribes, principally the Cheraw. Cite: Senate Report 108-213 (11/25/2003) (2) Ditto about the fair statement. But I will concede that the article should also fairly state and cite your preference for pointing out the controversy. (3) Ditto about the fair statement. I'm guessing that you're referring to the Tuscis? This article is not about the Indians of Robeson County. It's about the Lumbee. So, why can't the Lumbee be a tribe? Afterall, they are recognized by the State of North Carolina as the "Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina." With all do respect (I do appreciate your help in parsing this out), the assertion that the Lumbee are not a tribe is really just a distraction. Jas392 (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now concur on the last one. Clearly they are a tribe according to the political definition at least, and should be described as such. But I still think that the broader topic of "Indians of Rob Co" should be addressed somewhat in the body of the article.Verklempt (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lowerie Gang War

If the Loweries were fighting against Reconstruction government from 1868-1872, they were fighting Republicans not Democrats, right? This section states the governor asked for Federal troops for help. I think the Democrats did not regain power in the state until later but have to check some other sources.--Parkwells (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lowry gang began murdering before the end of the war, and was in action until 1872. This time period stretches across both Republican and Conservative regimes.Verklempt (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section on Heinegg's website

Among the additions on Heinegg's website (wwww.freeafricanamericans.com) is one headed "Colonial Tax Lists, Census and Court Records for DE, MD, NC, SC, TN and VA." Under this is a section "Robeson Co. Family Origins, Tax List". The first page is a summary of the origin of surnames that later appeared in Robeson Co among ancestors of Lumbee; a number were of slaves freed early in colonial times. Other items are transcriptions of tax lists. There are also transcriptions of many court and census records. This is for readers' information.--Parkwells (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certianly believe that this piece should play a role in the discussion, but I doubt that one source's controversial conclusions should form a dominant role in the Lead or the page as a whole. Jas392 (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

The lead is hideously long - please shorten it. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population

Someone changed the Lumbee population from 30,000 to 53,000 in the Infobox. There is no source for the number.--Parkwells (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that and the other radical changes made by Jas392 without discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jas392 says it is from the tribal enrollment office.--Parkwells (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both numbers should come out until some hard evidence is cited.Verklempt (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are we calling "hard evidence" these days? I suggest going to the source. Unless, of course, you know of a more accurate and contemporaneous source. BTW, I support this suspension and only hope that similar issues will find a reasonable "consensus."Jas392 (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the US Census is the most reliable source for this question. I don't have a problem with citing the tribal office, if there is a verifiable publication to be cited.Verklempt (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the US Census have a box for "Lumbee?" And even if they did, wouldn't the tribal enrollment office probably get better reporting anyway? Besides, Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), is consistently referenced in federal and state law for the notion that, if anything, a tribe's right to determine their own enrollment is basically the final, fundamental thread of sovereignty that Indian people truly have left. Jas392 (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guiding authority here is Wikipedia policy, not federal law. We need to cite a reliable and verifiable source.Verklempt (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The enrollment office is the most reliable source. As for verifiability, I submit the Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate of H.R. 65 (July 8, 2008), which used an assessment of 54,000 tribal members. Either 54k or 53k works for me, but the most reliable and up to date source says that the number is actually just under 53k today and possibly less because there are still some recently deceased tribal members whom have not been accounted for. BTW, federal law is authoritative even in Wikipedialand, especially when the Supreme Court is doing the talking. Jas392 (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cite must be to a published, verifiable, reliable source. The CBO works for me. We need to provide a more detailed cite, though, so that readers can find the source.Verklempt (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Congressional Budget Office's cost assessment in Senate Report 110-409, Providing for the Recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for Other Purposes (7/8/2008). Jas392 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

This does not reflect the whole article and controversy about origins, but mostly addresses only the fight for political recognition, and most recent claims of the tribe. It does not acknowledge opposition by Cherokee and Tuscarora recognized tribes to Federal recognition of Lumbees.--Parkwells (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we create another page or section below the Lead reserved for opponents to the Lumbee, and keep the focus of this page on the Lumbee itself as the page is appropriately titled? Jas392 (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other tribes' opposition to Lumbee recognition is already addressed in the "Petitioning for Federal recognition" section. I don't think it needs to be in the lede.Verklempt (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I move to strike Template:Ancestors of today's Lumbee tribe were recorded in the 1790 census as "free persons of color", indicating uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and perhaps Native American blood. from the Lead in place it in an "opponents to the Lumbee" section.Jas392 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for:{{Genealogical researchers have documented that ancestors of many Lumbee families were part of a tri-racial isolate group of predominantly African and European ethnicity, originating among individuals free in colonial Virginia. Most such free African Americans were descended from unions between white women, servant or free, and African men, servant, free or enslaved. Although relationships across racial lines were tolerated among the servant class in early colonial days, Virginia officials later moved to outlaw them. In the mid-1700s, the free colored families of Virginia migrated together, with other European colonists, into the interior of North Carolina. Researcher Paul Heinegg noted numerous families identified as mulattos, many with characteristically Lumbee names, in the 1768-1770 tax lists for Bladen County, from which Robeson County was formed. Heinegg found no nuclear families listed as Indian. In the 1790-1800 censuses, all free people of color were listed under "other free".}} Jas392 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think these passage are merely summarizing the "disputed origins" section. I agree that they violate NPOV. I also think they are too long and wordy for the lede.Verklempt (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead can certainly be rewritten, but some of the controversy about the origins of the Lumbee group should be reflected. It's not a minority opinion that their origins are likely tri-racial or subject to dispute in terms of Indian identity. At any rate, there is more than one opinion as to whether Lumbee are truly American Indian, given opposition by federally recognized tribes to their legislative recognition as well. The United South and Eastern Tribes (24) oppose Congressional recognition and want the Lumbee to go through application to Dept. of Interior as the fair solution, through amendment to the 1956 Act. Other federally recognized tribes also oppose Congressional recognition; they want the administrative process followed, in which the American Indian Policy Review Commission participated. In "Of Portuguese Origin": Litigating Identity and Citizenship among the "Little Races" in Nineteenth-Century America", Ariela Gross in Law and History Review wrote in Fall 2007 - "The Croatans—today known as the Lumbee—chose another response to the pressure of Jim Crow: they engaged in an elaborate process of self-definition as Native American. Although they probably shared a common "mixed" heritage with Melungeons, and though they were equally concerned to erase all traces of their African heritage, they began to identify not as white but as Indian. As Jim Crow emerged in North Carolina, the Indians of Robeson County sought a third way in a binary system."--Parkwells (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other tribes' opposition to Lumbee recognition has largely, and logically, been based on size of population for misinformed fears that the "Indian pie" will be further constrained by recognizing a tribe of over 50k members. And the Eastern Band of Cherokee have vehemently opposed the Lumbee because of casino market sharing concerns along interstate 95. But neither of these are valid reasons to deny federal recognition, so the opposition is forced to rely solely on two academically controversial studies by Dr. Virginia DeMarce and Paul Heinegg for the position that the Lumbee are "an invented North Carolina Indian tribe" despite a voluminous record of unavoidably more credible research to the contrary. See Statement of Michell Hicks, Chief of Eastern Band in H.R. Hearing 110-16 (4/18/2007) to see that these are the only two studies they rely on to proffer this notion. Also, not all of the USET tribes oppose Lumbee recognition (I might add that Chairman Hicks' statement presently appears here as the dominant theme of the Lumbee page - if that's not an outright injustice of bias, I shiver to imagine what would be!). See Testimony of James Martin, Executive Director of USET at the Senate Hearing 108-336 (9/17/2003). Jas392 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC) As for Ariela Gross, I'll just say that Lumbee political opposition does not rely on her work; Gross' piece does not address the voluminous congressional record finding that the Lumbee are in fact Indian; and that Gross' work focuses solely on an analysis of case law trial records to prove ethnic origin (a shotty anthropology at best). Jas392 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a minority opinion that the Lumbee are not American Indian. See Indian School Supervisor Pierce Report, filed with Senate on 4/4/1912; Special Indian Agent McPherson report, Doc. No. 677, 53rd Cong., 2nd Sess., prepared in 1914; Report of J.R. Swanton, Smithsonian Institute, at request of Bureau of Indian Affairs and submitted to Congress at the 1933 hearing; and Fred A. Baker Report on the Siouan Tribe of Indians of Robeson County, 7/9/1935. Template:These congressional hearings and studies "concluded that the Lumbee were a distinct, viable Indian community descended from Siouan speaking tribes, principally the Cheraw." Cite: Senate Report 108-213 (11/25/2003). The Lead says they are African, European, and perhaps Indian while relying on a source that is self-published and neither academic nor peer-reviewed. For a majority opinion, I propose that we rely on an authoritative and reliable factfinding body such as the US Congress' voluminous record dealing with these precise issues over the past 120 years. For instance, it is critical that the following be added to the lead as poignantly factual:

Template:The Lumbee are the only remaining tribe in the United States to have been acknowledged by Congress as Indian and prohibited federal Indian services in the same act. See e.g. S. Hrg 109-610, Statement of Hon. John McCain, US Senator of Arizona, Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, 7/12/2006. Template:There have only been two other tribes that had the same experience: the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas and Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona. See P.L. 95-375 for the Pascua Yaqui (9/18/1978) and P.L. 100-89 for Ysleta (12/18/1987). Template:Congress has since enacted legislation to restore the federal relationship to these two tribes. Id. Template:The only tribe that remains in this situation is the Lumbee. See e.g. S. Rpt. 109-334 (9/13/2006). Template:There are also other state-recognized tribes seeking recognition as American Indian tribes. See Cohen's Handbook on Federal Indian Law section 3.02[8][a]. Jas392 (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution by the USET, on the other hand, did not deal with Heinegg's work at all. They objected to the fact the group had no tribal government for a long time, and they objected to their attempt to circumvent a process in which federally recognized tribes had participated in creating criteria for recognition. In addition, we are supposed to be using third-party sources here, not doing OR into statements by the tribe's political supporters in Congress. Ariela Gross's article demonostrates there are others who think the history of the Lumbee, Melungeons and Narragansett provides interesting contrasts in terms of how they deal with their ancestries. We are not going to reach conclusion here but at least have to acknowledge the ambiguity. In addition, the 1972 article "The Little Races" by E.Thompson in American Anthropologist also addresses the history of biracial and multiracial groups, including the Lumbee. When the Lumbee sought Federal recognition in 1956, they stated in their testimony that they were not seeking any financial help. Now they would like some. That's ok, but maybe fair is also requiring them to go through the administrative process, despite its problems. We're supposed to be describing the tribe and issues here, not settling the political issues.--Parkwells (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lumbee are a political group, so like it or not we're going to talking about political issues, federal law, and the like. I will not allow this discussion to be relegated solely to the field of academia. Your position is that the Lumbee should go through the BIA process? Bud Shapard authored the regulations for the BIA process and he has testified before Congress that the process was not designed to handle a tribe the size of the Lumbee and that there exists "a history of negative bias within the BIA against Lumbees; [there are] extraordinary costs and time it would take to process a petition through the acknowledgement procedures for a group this size, and...that absolutely nothing new will be learned about this group by forcing the tribe to go the regulatory route." Senate Hearing 108-336 (9/17/2003). The current Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee also publicly acknowledges that the BIA recognition system is so flawed for even smaller tribes that "the process just takes too long and is excessively burdensome." Senate Hearing on Recommendations for Improving the Federal Acknowledgment Process (4/24/2008). Jas392 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1)I don't see any real serious substantive disagreements here. The lede already states that the Lumbees are federally recognized, that they are tri-racial in origin, and that their ancestry claims are controversial. All of this is easily substantiated, and should not be controversial. So where's the problem? (2) The material about the other tribes cannot go in. As an original synthesis, it violates WP:OR.User:Verklempt|Verklempt]] (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already agreed on this, but I want to make it clear once again that the language "Ancestors of today's Lumbee tribe were recorded in the 1790 census as "free persons of color", indicating uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and perhaps Native American blood" has no place in the lead. Jas392 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of federal relationship

Congress did not "restore" a relationship. None existed. The federal government had no relationship with these entities; Congress has forced recognition through a political process.--Parkwells (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.L. 100-89 restored the legal identity of the Texas tribes through Federal recognition.--Parkwells (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above reference to P.L. 100-89 was material from one of the tribe's websites, but it is not sufficient, since neither they (apparently) nor I am an Indian law lawyer.--Parkwells (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the language "the federal trust relationship between the US and the tribe is hereby restored" can credibly, responsibly, or even reasonably be construed as anything but restoration language. This is a direct quote of the public law, or the statute itself rather. You can look it up on thomas.gov under public laws or Westlaw or Lexis. Moreover, it's just sloppy to say that an act restored a tribe's legal identity through federal recognition. It doesn't make sense when worded that way - it's like talking about the femur being broken in your head.Jas392 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is irrelevant to the Lumbee article.Verklempt (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it irrelevant? This is probably the most important part of Lumbee history today. I'll just assume that you don't quite understand legislative precedent and break it down here all over again: The Lumbee are unique among all Native American tribes as the only tribe in the United States subject to an act of the United States Congress that both acknowledged them as Indian and terminated them in the same act. There have only been two other tribes unfortunate enough to have been put in the same circumstance as the Lumbee: the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas and Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona. In both cases, Congress enacted legislation that acknowledged the tribes as Indians then terminated them in the same act. Also in both cases, Congress has corrected this injustice by extending federal recognition to both tribes. The only tribe that remains in this unfortunate situation is the Lumbee. In short, whether or not those other two tribes were 'restored' or 'recognized' determines much of the argument as to whether the Lumbee are currently recognized. You see, being 'restored' acknowledges that you were once 'recognized.' The Ysleta bill that put them in this position was actually modeled after the 1956 Lumbee Act, so if they got 'restored' then there's a very credible legislative precedent argument that the Lumbee are in fact recognized as an Indian tribe already although they are denied Indian services. I hope you can now see how absolutely relevant this is to the discussion of Lumbee, a political entity. Jas392 (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the argument, and I agree that it is pertinent. The problem is that it violates WP:OR, unless you can find an appropriate source the makes the same argument.Verklempt (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. For the limited, but equally meaningful fact that "the only other tribe placed in a similar position is the Tiwa Tribe of Texas...using the 1956 Act as a model" and "in 1987, Congress enacted legislation to restore the Tiwas" see Senate Report 109-334 ((9/13/2006). Also see Federal Recognition: The Lumbee Tribe's Hundred Year Quest" available at www.lumbeetribe.com/recognition/100_year_quest.pdf The Tiwas are commonly cited, but the Pascua are literally overlooked in this context due to poor research staff, but I'll try to find a good source that includes the Pascua as well. Until then, I'm willing to limit the scope of this fact to the Tiwas as the reports have consistently pointed out. Along those lines, I'm only citing one report here, but others can be added if you feel that it's necessary. Jas392 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that argument could be mentioned somewhere in the article, citing hte Senate committee report. As I wrote elsewhere today, I would not give partisan political statements the same weight as scholarly publications.Verklempt (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I'll reiterate the distinction I made between congressional reports and congressional hearings: testimony from congressional hearings can be politically motivated (i.e. the references in the current page to Chief Hicks), but congressional reports are an analysis of the entire scope of the record. A highly academic record, I might add. Jas392 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

There has been no discussion about the recent wave of edits that contradict much of what was in the previous version. I don't know who's right, but there needs to be discussion before making such massive changes. If this continues there will be no option but to protect the page from editing until the disputes are solved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

The tribe went through several name changes: from Croatan, to Cherokees, to Siouan, to Lumbee. This is off the top of my head. If we want name changes in the lede, then it should cover all of the names IMO.Verklempt (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't care. There might be some mention of name changes because it would be more reflective of the article that follows.--Parkwells (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can go either way here. If we name all of the tribes though, let's try to keep it unbiased or slanted toward implications that the Lumbee kept pulling names out of the sky for recognition purposes. The different names were given to them by the legislature and non-Indian "historians" of the time, not the Lumbee. There's evidence of the term "Lumbee" as early as 1730 and the first time the Lumbee tribe itself voted, in 1953, it was a landslide. There should be no room, in the Lead at least, for misleading or disparaging implications.Jas392 (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the page says "In the early 1950s, they once again adopted a new tribal identity, naming themselves for the nearby Lumber River," which needs to be changed in order to get rid of the implication that the Lumbee kept pulling names out of the sky for recognition purposes or that they aren't really Indian because they don't derive from only one historic tribe (they are clearly a mix of several historic tribes as well as some White and Black). First of all, McNickle wrote in 1936 that "while the state showed uncertainty in its choice of an official name, it continued to extend additional benefits, for example directing that a special ward in the State hospital for the insane be set apart for them, as also in the Robeson County jail and the Home for the Aged and Infirm." More specifically, Henderson wrote in 1923 that "they violently resent being called Croatans... One Indian of whom I inquired why they so bitterly disliked to be called Croatans said "Croatan means nigger and is a fighting word with us." It's common knowledge that McMillan gave them this name from his Lost Colony theory, which may or may not be credible but the point is that the Lumbee ancestors did not give themselves this name. As for the name Cherokee, Pierce wrote that "this attempt to get recognition as members of the Cherokee Tribe should not be dismissed casually as being due to a desire to get land or other benefits designed for the Eastern Band of Cherokees. It resulted rather from the urging of McLean of Lumberton, NC. McLean had befriended these people and he spent years studying their history and championing their right to recognition as Indians. As a historian he was far from reliable, but he was essentially correct in concluding that, "whatever the origin of the Indians of this community was, it is certain that from the first settlement they have been separated from the other inhabitants of that region and are of Indian descent, with Indian characteristics, with complexion, features, and hair of the Indian race..."" Again, the first time the tribal members themselves voted was in 1953 and it was a landslide to adopt Lumbee. Moreover, Vine Deloria, Jr. (a Godfather in Indian law and enrolled member of the Standing Rock Sioux) testified before Congress in 1988 that "formal tribal government is a creation of the BIA and not an Indian characteristic. A traditional Indian community more closely resembles what we find in Robeson County among the Lumbee, large extended families who exert social and political control over family members, and who see their family as part of an extended people. This method of government, incidentally, is the only valid and viable way to control human behavior apart from a massive prison system such as we have in the US today." Jas392 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side, I'll just note that Pierce wrote in 1912 regarding the Cherokee designation failure that "this was without doubt a good solution, for as one of the old Croatans expressed to me, "Had my people been given federal aid along with the Cherokees, I am very much afraid that they would become as lazy and good for nothing as they are."" Jas392 (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

I've protected the page due to the recent edit warring. Further changes need to be discussed first, especially radical changes like the ones that have been made recently.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm the gadfly here. This page really needs to be cleaned up, so I'm glad that we have this opportunity to reach a reasonable consensus.Jas392 (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources

Paul Heinegg did years' worth of research on his book Free African Americans in North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina. He received awards for this work both from the North Carolina Genealogical Society in 1992, and the Donald Lines Jacobus Award for the best work of genealogy published between 1991 and 1994 from the American Society of Genealogists in 1994. There were whites in North Carolina who objected to the award by the state association (per 8 Jan 2004 article, NY Times). He continues to update his material on his website, and has added material on families in Maryland and Delaware. He has also published articles with Dr. Virginia Easley De Marce, a Ph.D. in history who served as President of the National Genealogical Society, and works at Dept of Interior in reviewing Native American tribal recognition. Although Heinegg's first book was self-published, later editions with updates have been published every two years by Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc. We are not required to justify our sources here, but Heinegg's work has received praise from historians such as Dr. Boles of Rice U. and Dr. Ira Berlin of U of MD. --Parkwells (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Heinegg, De Marce, and Gross posit, "there is a voluminous congressional and administrative record" dealing with these precise issues in greater scope and performed for specific purposes of Lumbee origin as opposed to African American heritage, which "concluded that the Lumbees were a distinct, viable Indian community descended from Siouan speaking tribes, principally the Cheraw." Senate Hearing Report 108-213 (11/25/2003). Jas392 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy should be in the article. However, statements made by partisans in a political proceeding should not be given equal weight with scholarly publications.Verklempt (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it should be in the article but it must not take a dominant position of the article. You have to understand that there is so much more to this story than the fact that some Lumbees mixed. It's neither fair nor accurate when that position is blown out of proportion to champion a notion that Lumbees are not Indian. I will concede that testimony from congressional hearings can be politically motivated, but congressional reports are an analysis of the entire scope of the record. A highly academic record, I might add. Jas392 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is important to retain the nuance. Few people disagree that the Lumbees are Indians today. That much is uncontroversial, and has been for a century. The debate is over their ancestors' identity prior to 1885. The dominant position among scholars is that prior to 1885, they were a multiracial population, whose public identity was mostly "mulatto" -- not Indian. That shift in identity from mulatto to Indian is what makes them so interesting. Of course, there were a number of groups that did the same thing, but the Lumbees were the first and largest group to pull it off. The Wikipedia article simply has to retain this historical narrative. It would be a huge mistake for the article to simply echo the current Lumbee origins myth, which is that they were always Indians.Verklempt (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I think the lede should be restored to how it was a while ago, when it said something to the effect of: "The Lumbee are a Native American people originally of North Carolina, though their origins are disputed. While Lumbees today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of European Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans. " It looks like no one, least of all the Lumbee themselves, identify the Lumbee as anything other than Indian. However, any Indian tribe may have mixed origins. Just look at the Seminole, who are a mix of Creek, various other Indian peoples, and white and black Americans. But no one denies that they are fully an Indian tribe today.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cuchullain, how am I supposed to assume good faith when you totally just deleted my previous entry? Anyway, here's what I had to say: I'm not a genealogical researcher, but I do understand that it's logically impossible for a group of people to become Indian when Indian means indigenous to this land. For instance, let's call the indigenous people A, well if A mixed with B, C, D, E and F to produce what is presently G then how did G only become indigenous after mixing when it was also A all along? What I'm saying is that they have always been Indian because A has always been a part of the equation. The dispute these days seems to be over how much of a role A played or plays in that equation. Jas392 (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC) And I agree with you that there probably was a time when the Lumbee ancestors didn't go around waving an Indian flag, for all the right reasons, but that has no bearing on whether or not they were Indian during that time. Jas392 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Jas392 (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, how about this: Template:The Lumbee are a Native American people originally of North Carolina, though their origins are disputed.Template:While Lumbees today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of the Cheraw and related Siouan-speaking tribes of the coastal regions of North Carolina as well as some European and African ancestry.Template:In 1885 the State of North Carolina recognized the Lumbee as American Indians.Jas392 (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting your comment was a simple mistake, an editing conflict - we were just posting at the same time. There's no reason you should fail to assume good faith over something like that. As to your equation, the key is that G is not A, they evolved from A among the other groups. In the same way the Seminole are not Creeks, they branched off from the Creeks, mixed with other groups, and became something new all together. Just because there were no Seminoles prior to the 18th century does not mean they are not Indians. Also, being Indian does not necessarily mean they are indigenous to the land - few of the Indian tribes in Oklahoma are indigenous to there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous to the continent is what I meant. It was said earlier that they were not "Indian" before 1885, not that they weren't "Lumbee" before 1885. I'm okay with not being Lumbee before 1885, but the argument stands that it is not logically possible for a group to suddenly become Indian/indigenous to this continent. Your ancestors were either here or they weren't; no matter what name the group goes by now, they're either Indian throughout or not. It's an immutable characteristic. Jas392 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To use an essentialist definition of "Indian" would totally violate the overwhelming contemporary scholarly consensus on ethnic identity. I support Cúchullain's recommendation that we revert to that previous version, which is superior to the current version.22:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So, to be Native American doesn't mean that your ancestors were indigenous to this continent anymore? Wow, academia is actually worse than practitioners joke. This is beside the point though, because it has nothing to do with why you think Cuch's previous version is better. How about I lay them out, and hopefully we'll get more reasonable people in here to say which is less disparaging:

Template:The Lumbee are a Native American people originally of North Carolina, though their origins are disputed.Template:While Lumbees today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of the Cheraw and related Siouan-speaking tribes of the coastal regions of North Carolina as well as some European and African ancestry.Template:In 1885 the State of North Carolina recognized the Lumbee as American Indians. OR

The Lumbee are a Native American people originally of North Carolina, though their origins are disputed. While Lumbees today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of European Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans.

My concern is that the second version is still slanted because it makes all things equal relative to the race mixture, when we all know that Lumbees are Indian first and foremost. So, the word Native American should not come last and it should be separated from the other two to distinguish them as not being equal parts. Jas392 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with saying "...in origin a mixture of Native Americans, European Americans, and African Americans with Native Americans first. However, which tribe(s) they are related to appears to be in dispute.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your recommendation.--Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "all know they were first and foremost Indian". They were discussed for years as triracial in studies, among several other triracial groups in frontier areas. As Verklempt noted, they have been identifying as Indian since they were recognized in 1885. It's reasonable to show their origins as triracial. Woods' 2004 article in American Anthropologist agreed with Virginia DeMarce on the migrations of many Lumbee ancestors into NC from VA. --Parkwells (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many competing definitions of Indian identity, both among scholars and among Indians. This article should not take a position supporting a single definition, especially in the lede. I would object to Jas392's first sentence, since that is a controversial statement. The lede should not take sides in any controversy. Also, there are no primary sources identifying the Lumbee ancestors as Cheraw or any other tribe. Their tribal origins is also disputed, and thus should not be in the lede.Verklempt (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I'll note that you said the Lead should not take sides in any controversy.

But I will also disabuse you of the notion that "there are no primary sources identifying the Lumbee ancestors as Cheraw or any other tribe" by referring you to John Reed Swanton's expert opinion that "the evidence available thus seems to indicate that the Indians of Robeson County who have been called Croatan and Cherokee are descended mainly from certain Siouan tribes of which the most prominent were the Cheraw and Keyauwee, but they probably included as well remnants of the Eno, and Shakori, and very likely some of the coastal groups such as the Waccamaw and Cape Fears." (Swanton 1934). Also see Swanton 1938: 323. Jas392 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swanton merely consulted the census and some books he had available in his office. He never did any primary archival research, and he's not referring to such evidence in this passage.Verklempt (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any cites for that notion? Otherwise Swanton and all the others stand, because it would be a violation of WP:OR policy, especially when there are contemporaneous congressional REPORTS (not hearings) that rely on these studies. Jas392 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Here I was contributing to a discussion about sources, not advocating language for the article. If you're interested in what evidence Swanton looked at, you would indeed have to do original research in the NAA archives, and I agree that it couldn't go in the article until it was published. (2) For the article, it is certainly appropriate to cite Swanton, but he is only one of many voices that meet WP:RS, and not all of them buy his hypothesis. All of the credible sides should be addressed. In other words, the lede should not take the Cheraw hypothesis as given, due to its controversial nature.Verklempt (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the tri-racial part and it does not matter if you agree Lumbees are first and foremost Indian, you must concede to fact for the sake of this article. As for not being Indian before 1885, you should know by now that Special Indian Agent O.M. McPherson described Lumbee surnames in an Indian community via land grants during the 18th century early settlement of the area of the Lumbee as follows:

"At the coming of the white settlers there was found located on the waters of the Lumber River a large tribe of Indians, speaking English, tilling the soil, owning slaves [BTW how many African Americans do you think owned slaves at this time?], and practicing many arts of civilized life. They occupied the country as far west as the Pee Dee, but their principal seat was on the Lumber, extending along the river for 20 miles. They had their lands in common, and land titles only became known on the approach of white men. The first grant of land to any of this tribe of which there is written evidence in existence was made by George II in 1732 to Henry Berry and James Lowrie [Lumbee surnames], two leading men of the tribe, and was located on the Lowrie Swamp, east of the Lumber river in present county of Robeson, NC. A subsequent grant was made to James Lowrie in 1738. According to tradition, there were deeds of land of older date, described as "white" deeds and "Smith" deeds, but no trace of their existence can be found." McPherson 1915: 48-49.

It's utterly absurd to be a contributor to this article and hold the belief that the present day Lumbees' ancestors were not Indian until 1885 when they petitioned for assistance for their Indian Normal School. I submit that your scope of research is too narrow, and I can't help but wonder what the motive is for such a limited POV. If we can just get past the Lead, I have plenty more work to do on the body of this article. Jas392 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McPherson is plagiarizing McMillan. There are no primary sources that would substantiate this passage. Those land grants don't exist. They were fabricated by McMillan.Verklempt (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any cites for that notion? Otherwise McPherson and all the others stand, because it would be a violation of WP:OR policy, especially when there are contemporaneous congressional REPORTS (not hearings) that rely on these studies. Jas392 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NC state archivist published on the topic, and so did Heinegg. I believe that this is already in the article, or was at one time. I am also in possession of a professor's conference paper on the subject. I don't know if it meets WP:RS or not. Probably a borderline case, unless he's published it in the meantime.Verklempt (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cites? The standard should be pretty high for discrediting this, certainly higher than a source that is not peer-reviewed and deals primarily with African American heritage as opposed to Lumbee origins as McPherson, Swanton, Pierce and many others did and concluded to the contrary. Jas392 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heinegg dealt with primary sources of land deeds that did exist, not the imaginary ones of McPherson and McMillan. He traced back surnames on those deeds and other colonial records (many of whom appear to be Lumbee ancestors) to many African Americans free in VA. You keep complaining his first book was not peer-reviewed, but his work has been assessed and recommended by leading academic historians in the field, such as Ira Berlin of U of MD who are familiar with his sources and how he evaluated them. In addition, Heinegg's work has received awards from the state and national genealogical associations, and updated editions have been published by a genealogical publishing house. The fact that he discovered something significant about mixed-race families, including Lumbee ancestors and other Indian groups, while first trying to trace African Americans doesn't discount his findings. There does not appear to be any data about what proportion of those early groups were of Indian ancestry, after all.--Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of land grants is already addressed in the article. McPherson and McMillan were wrong and the Lumbee backed away from using that as a basis for their claim for recognition. See - "In 1885, Hamilton McMillan wrote that Lumbee ancestor James Lowrie received sizeable land grants early in the century and by 1738 possessed combined estates of more than two thousand acres (8 km²). Dial and Eliades claimed that John Brooks established title to over one thousand acres (4 km²) in 1735, and Robert Lowrie gained possession of almost seven hundred acres (2.8 km²).[24] However, according to a state archivist, no land grants were issued during these years in North Carolina, and the first land grants to documented Lumbee ancestors did not occur until more than a decade later.[25] The Lumbee petition for federal recognition backed away from McMillan's claims."[26] The last cite is from their own 1987 Petition for recognition.--Parkwells (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have one of the few copies of the 1987 Lumbee petition and that's where the above McPherson cite comes from. The 1987 petition supplies that McPherson quote above (which came from McMillan originally but McPherson's 252 pages were not simply a plagiorization of McMillan's 27 pages as stated above - he cited McMillan where appropriate and even drew contrary conclusions) but the petition also states that "the first land grant in the area of Drowning Creek was to Henry O'Berry in 1748" prior to the quote from above. Perhaps the last sentence that "According to tradition, there were deeds of land of older date, described as "white" deeds and "Smith" deeds, but no trace of their existence can be found" is informative, especially when you consider that Pierce said that "it is a curious fact that it is a rare occurrence for one of these people to sell an acre of land, and that there are now lands in possession of certain families that have been handed down from father to son, generation after generation, with no record of transfer from the original grant from the state." In fact, immediately after that "the first land grant" part, the petition nonetheless states that "it is clear there was a community of 300 or more individuals on Drowning Creek that held land in common. The most reasonable explanation for its existence, given the lack of white settlement in the area, is that the community consists of resident tribal members." In short, (1) the 1987 petition did not step away from the McPherson/McMillan quote that Lumbee ancestors were already on Drowning Creek during first white settlement of the area; and (2) just because the State archivist doesn't have a record of the transfer doesn't mean that there weren't Lumbee ancestors there at the time. Jas392 (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, according to a state archivist, no land grants were issued during these years in North Carolina, and the first land grants to documented Lumbee ancestors did not occur until more than a decade later.[25] Aside from this citation being hearsay, it is false in part, at least as written. Ms. Hofmann did find land grants issued during these years and recorded them in her book: Margaret M. Hofmann, comp., Colony of North Carolina, 1735-1764; Abstracts of Land Patents, Volume One (Weldon, N.C.: Roanoke News Co., 1982). The Rob't. Lowry grant is found on p. 113, no. 1620; the John Brooks grants are found on p. 101, no. 1420 and p. 103, no. 1462. What is partly true is that DeMarce cannot find a documented connection of these individuals to Lumbee. This does not mean they are not connected, documented or not.David F Lowry (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)ETA: I am getting this not directly from Hofmann's book but from DeMarce's footnotes 10 and 13 of her NGSQ article "Looking at Legends". I leave open the possibility that DeMarce is simply wrong since I cannot get hold of the Hofmann book myself.David F Lowry (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one says the Lumbee did not have any Indian ancestors. Obviously they did. The dispute is whether they, as the group that currently identifies as "Lumbee", always considered themselves an Indian tribe or were considered such by other groups.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See paragraph immediately prior to yours regarding holding land in common prior to white settlement of the area as well as my reference in this discussion to Vine Deloria (or any other Indian expert) regarding traditional Indian communities. Formal tribal government is a creation of the BIA and not an Indian characteristic. Jas392 (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can answer this any better than Jas392. I only want to add that I cannot even get my head around the issue! Why on earth, having no notion of India, would we have called ourselves Indian back then? We called ourselves "Our People". Mohawks by the English and French call themselves "Flint Place People". The so-called Oneidas call themselves "Upright Stone Place People". The so-called Onondagas call themselves "Hill People". The so-called Cayugas call themselves "People Of The Pipe". The so-called Senecas call themselves "Big Hill People".David F Lowry (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on controversy

What is considered valid in anthropological assessment and physical studies continues to change. DNA provides new kinds of evidence. History is revised as new information is discovered through documents, archaeology, and new lines of research. As noted in the article, some studies or methods in which experts contended they had "proved" Indian descent of Lumbee are no longer considered valid in the academic community. Some of the federally recognized tribes, such as the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET), representing 24 tribes, stated they did not believe the Lumbees had historically functioned as a tribe with tribal government. So there is more than one issue here. USET also stated they believed a fair solution was not Congressional recognition and circumvention of administrative process, but amending the 1956 Act so the Lumbee could go through the process at DOI.--Parkwells (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all 24 tribes of USET oppose congressional Lumbee recognition, and none of them oppose Lumbee recognition generally. Senate Hearing 108-336. Jas392 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC) I'll also add here that all of your stuff above from USET comes from a congressional hearing, and I'll reiterate that testimony from congressional hearings can be politically motivated, but congressional reports are an analysis of the entire scope of the record. Jas392 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're going to insist on mentioning that the Lumbee should go through the administrative recognition process, I'll also reiterate here that Bud Shapard authored the regulations for the BIA process and he has testified before Congress that the process was not designed to handle a tribe the size of the Lumbee and that there exists "a history of negative bias within the BIA against Lumbees; [there are] extraordinary costs and time it would take to process a petition through the acknowledgement procedures for a group this size, and...that absolutely nothing new will be learned about this group by forcing the tribe to go the regulatory route." Senate Hearing 108-336 (9/17/2003). Also, Senator Byron Dorgan, the current Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee also acknowledges that the BIA recognition system is so flawed for even smaller tribes that "the process just takes too long and is excessively burdensome." Senate Hearing on Recommendations for Improving the Federal Acknowledgment Process (4/24/2008). Jas392 (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Also see See United States Government Accountability Office Report (GAO-02-49: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recogntion Process; 11/2001) and Testimonies (GAO-02-415T: More Consistent and Timely Tribal Recognition Process Needed; 2/7/2002)(GAO-02-936T: Basis for BIA's Tribal Recognition Decisions Is Not Always Clear; 9/17/2002)(GAO-05-347T: Timeliness of the Tribal Recognition Process Has Improved, but It Will Take Years to Clear the Existing Backlog of Petitions; 2/10/2005). Jas392 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not have to promote the political goals of the Lumbees. Since some of the federally recognized tribes have passed a resolution suggesting the Lumbees should go through the process, and some of the NC delegation is also opposed to the legislative solution, it is possible to mention that as one side of the current status. It certainly indicates there is controversy within the Native American community. This is not supposed to be a breaking news article or position paper for the Lumbees, but an encyclopedia account that gives more than one view of a question or issue. Citing testimony and GAO reports about problems at BIA seems way beyond the scope of this article. It may be just one of the reasons the tribe has sought a political solution. Why do members of the NC delegation oppose it, or recommend they go through the process. Congress does not necessarily want to be hit with a deluge of Indian recognition cases. Why do a number of federally recognized tribes oppose this course of action? That suggests more issues.--Parkwells (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article does not have to promote the political goals of the Lumbee, however, the article does not have to promote the political goals of opponents to the Lumbee either. Jas392 (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you're going to insist on mentioning that the Lumbee should go through the administrative recognition process, the article will also have to mention the well documented reasons why they should not go through the process. Why is it only considered advancing political goals when I have something in response to the politics you brought up? Besides, the 1989 solicitor's opinion makes everything here moot, but you brought it up to advance your cause (which is exactly what again? oh yeah, neutrality...I almost forgot). Somehow my numerous and credible cites to the contrary fell on deaf ears, which only makes the community lose even more faith in your coveted "consensus" here Jas392 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A central Wikipedia policy is that the article should not take sides in a controversy. It is more appropriate to air all sides. The Lumbees' recognition strategy is probably not appropriate for this article, unless there is a good source that weighs the various pros and cons for us. Our own synthesis is verboten, according to Wikipedia policy.Verklempt (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you understand about the fact that if you're going to bring the OFA process into discussion to advance a certain cause, you must also address the other side by pointing out that numerous GAO reports have identified significant flaws in the process? If you are so biased as to not even be able to see that, then we're going to be here forever. Eventually I'll figure this Wikiland out and you will be bypassed. Jas392 (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea: How about when you cite a congressional hearing stating that opposing tribes think the Lumbee should go through the OFA, we'll also cite Lumbee leaders from the same congressional hearing expressing why they shouldn't? If you can't agree to that then I most certainly will resort to whatever Wiki authorities there are. Jas392 (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jas392, if you really think it necessary, there are a number of venues for resolving disputes which may be sought if discussion here fails to achieve consensus. However, discussion is the first step. And as I've told you before, you will not get very far if you continue to use such accusatory, belligerant language towards other editors. Whatever positive contributions you have to make are likely to fall on deaf ears if you continue to be so confrontational towards those you're working with.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that administrators such as yourself are supposed to be neutral and "not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with," so if I seem a bit abrasive after repeating myself with a slew of cites ten times and having some posts here deleted by you, please forgive me. Jas392 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If the article states that opposing tribes think the Lumbee should go through the OFA process, the article must also state that Lumbee leaders think they should not.Jas392 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposition. I think a discussion of the issues involved in the "OFA v. legislative recognition" question is relevant and appropriate. Both sides make a good argument, and this article is an appropriate place to air it, although not at great length.Verklempt (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article covers quite a number of Lumbee stories of origins and events during the years, as well as what differing scholars have concluded about them. For instance, it addresses changing ideas in physical anthropology about what constitutes valid "proof". I hope we are not going to argue on this page about whether Congressional reports, written at whatever time, somehow trump other work. That's not the point - this is supposed to rely upon valid third-party sources to show what the information is, not to settle controversies. The Lumbee history, along with many others in the United States, shows different pieces of how we address identity and how people have done so in the past. Whether the lead could have improved, the rest of the article presents much of the issues through the years. It is not required to conclude whether it is fair or not that the Lumbee don't have Federal recognition, only what the issues are. --Parkwells (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you saying is wrong with Template:If the article states that opposing tribes think the Lumbee should go through the OFA process, the article must also state that Lumbee leaders think they should not.? Jas392 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can someone clarify for me whether Wikipedia cites are restricted to academia? Jas392 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything was wrong with that idea. I said I hoped we weren't continually going to argue on this page about whether Congressional reports are somehow more valid than other sources. We do not have to agree on the sources. As in the invalid land grant issue, there are a number of issues that have already been covered in the article, with sources that identify different points of view. I was not ignoring your cites from GAO reports about BIA problems, simply saying that nonetheless there were people, including NC Congressmen, urging that process be followed.--Parkwells (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. But just to be fair, the NC Congressman you refer to is Heath Shuler from the 11th District and I can provide cites to how much money the Eastern Band contributes to his campaign. Meanwhile, the Lumbee contribute nothing to any NC politicians and congressional recognition bills are the first priority of both Senators of NC, most other NC members of Congress publicly support Lumbee congressional recognition as well as the Governor. From your previous post, I assume you agree with me that this is important stuff to mention? Jas392 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got into this article from an interest in 18th and 19th social history. Gross' article and others like it attempted to look at how different groups dealt with identity issues, whether you agree with it or not (as you tried to dismiss in other parts of this page). I was not looking for late-breaking news of political alignments and contributions related to passage of legislation for Lumbee recognition. I don't think that material should dominate this article. It might be that a separate article on 20th century identities and battles for federal recognition could be written, with some perspective on changing ideas, as there seems to be plenty of material and you seem to be very knowledgeable about those sources. It might be interesting to find other sources that compare when and how the small tribes in TX chose to seek recognition compared with the Lumbee process.--Parkwells (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 2007 three NC representatives, not one, opposed the bill for Lumbee recognition, as did the Cong. from CT; there was also dissension among Indian tribes both inside NC and outside the state. I haven't tried to look at all the voting for 2008. I really don't think the article should go further than noting the dissension. It seems like OR to go looking for newspaper articles or other contemporary material to cite to try to determine why they voted the way they did. Even if you have a cite that says how much money was donated, you're making an assumption that all decisions or voting flowed from contributions from one tribe or another, and then assume those voting for the bill were somehow voting out of a greater sense of fairness or altruism. Yes, they may have different interests, but so do the people who voted for the bill. I think the current politics should not overwhelm this article. If you three think all the current political infighting should be reflected in detail, then you can work on valid third-party sources, but I don't think it's appropriate.--Parkwells (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't really want to get into all of this in the article until it kept being mentioned here about the folks that oppose congressional recognition of the Lumbee within NC, both tribal and political. My natural response was simply to give some insight into that by saying that there are actually an overwhelming number of NC members of Congress and the Governor whom support congressional recognition, while the political reality of it all is that the EBC oppose the bill for the widely known reason that their casino market share may be threatened so they have consistently lined the pockets of their guys. It's not even necessary for the article to draw that line so boldly - if you insist on pointing out this dissension, it's really only fair that we talk about the entire political climate of the state (the majority part I just mentioned) and the article should simply link to political contributions and the readers can do with it what they will. In other words, I agree that the article does not need to draw that inference for them specifically saying that these reps only oppose because of EBC and their contributions; that can be figured out by any reasonable person that looks at the entire landscape/climate and sees where the contributions are going. Jas392 (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, here's what I'm asking for: (1) not just the dissent, but the entire political landscape of NC showing who supports and doesn't; and (2) a link to political contributions. Otherwise, I don't think it's fair to only mention the dissent, which is a corrupt minority. We should aspire to include all of the facts, or just avoid it completely for fear of sounding bias to one position. Jas392 (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with what you're asking for is that it is Original Research. You already have an idea about what everything means, and you're going to look for sources that back up your ideas. It's absurd to talk about "including all the facts" for an encyclopedia article. Of course choices have to be made. Why stop at the entire political landscape of NC - why not include the entire political landscape of why each House and Senate member is voting as he or she is on this issue? Why does someone from Wyoming or Montana oppose it? Can't remember who. Although how one would determine that is questionable, given all the other deals and negotiations and bills each and every Senator and Rep is involved in. This is overkill. And describing the minority in NC as "corrupt" is definitely POV. This is all contemporary stuff going on, which is the difficulty in trying to find objective third-part sources to use as references. You keep adding more and more requirements. I would recommend no more than a paragraph - say that the Lumbees have made progress in gaining more Congressional support but have not yet achieved it; that some opponents recommend their Act be amended to allow them to pursue the regular process, but they have reasons to prefer the political approach, and be done with it.--Parkwells (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Park for the last sentence above...hate to see you go because you have obviously contributed so well to this discussion and your insight on a balanced parsing will be missed. I agree with your assessment that there should be {{"no more than a paragraph - say that the Lumbees have made progress in gaining more Congressional support but have not yet achieved it; that some opponents recommend their Act be amended to allow them to pursue the [regulatory] process, but they have reasons to prefer the political approach, and be done with it"}}. Out of respect for this discussion, I will address three key questions you raised above: (1) why not national landscape? Well, we could do that (I have the cites for the data), but it would be well longer than a paragraph at that point and unnecessary as it is a local NC issue; (2) my description of the dissent as "corrupt" - I apologize, I never intended that language to be included in the article itself, I just wanted to point out a common understanding for you guys amongst everyone that works on the hill and understands what's the real driving force behind Indians fighting Indians these days; and (3) more and more requirements - all I asked for here was that we not focus solely on the dissent and I prefer keeping this a local NC issue by looking at the NC landscape as a whole, which is really the fairest way to present a neutral piece. Jas392 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro edits

Okay, I made some edits that I think we have consensus for. It now says the "Lumbee are a Native American tribe of North Carolina, though their origins are disputed. Though the Lumbee today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of Native Americans, European Americans, and African Americans." Also, the line about census sources identifying them as "free persons of color" has a fact tag; this needs to be cited as it appears to be controversial (at least among editors at this page) what is meant by that designation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heinegg and DeMarce are the obvious sources to cite, although really any of the recent scholarly sources will say the same thing.Verklempt (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cuch, looks like we're making progress, which is pleasing to see. Jas392 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed also to taking out the last paragraph in the lede.--Parkwells (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out

Guys, but there are other things that I need and want to work on. I can't spend this much time arguing about so many issues in this article, and as Jas392 pointed out, we have only just begun. I'm out of it for some time; do with it what you want. This is absurd.--Parkwells (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, Park. It will be more difficult without you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments - this article is a learning experience. After a pending move, maybe I can get back to it. I know you all care about covering the topic fairly. Verklempt and others interested in the topic may like to read Ariela Gross, "Of Portuguese Origin": Litigating Identity and Citizenship among the "Little Races" in Nineteenth-Century America, Law and History Review, Vol. 25, No.3, Fall 2007 [6] She compared the strategies and histories of Melungeons, Lumbees and Narragansetts, and has some valuable material on 19th and early 20th c. history, including Dr. Virginia De Marce's work on migration of specific families of Lumbee ancestors from VA to NC in the late 18th c.

par.80 "Although they probably shared a common "mixed" heritage with Melungeons, and though they were equally concerned to erase all traces of their African heritage, they began to identify not as white but as Indian. As Jim Crow emerged in North Carolina, the Indians of Robeson County sought a third way in a binary system."
Par.99 "Croatans, on the other hand, remained highly concerned with demonstrating that their community contained no "taint" of black blood and was instead purely Indian. They were supported in their efforts by the North Carolina General Assembly, which in 1921 established a racial screening committee for the Robeson County schools, staffed only by Indians of Robeson County. The group also policed the boundaries of Indian identity in the pages of local newspapers as well as in the courts, so that in 1914, the Robesonian was forced to print a retraction for having referred to Amos Bell of Ten Mile Swamp as a "darky." --Parkwells (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no secret that Lums have historically wanted to associate (and be associated) more with Whites than Blacks, but I doubt the conclusion that Lums created an Indian identity can hold water. I mean, what were they before if they had to create an Indian identity? Black? White? A non-Indian mix? Any assertion that they were not Indian flies in the face of the overwhelming majority of evidence on the subject. Besides, Gross' study was limited to case law, which obviously can be interpreted several different ways otherwise we would have no need for lawyers. I'm okay with Gross except the false assertion that Lumbees created an Indian identity. I'll cite if that's really necessary, but let's just agree not to make this creation story a dominant theme - it can certainly play a role though, as her work should be respected nonetheless. Jas392 (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen any evidence at all of Indian identity prior to the war. It's clear from all the evidence that these people's social status was "mulatto", or "free people of color".Verklempt (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the discussions under "Free Persons of Color" and "Self-Identification Prior to 1885." Also see discussions #16, #19, and #23 regarding the NC Tuscarora, whom have the same ancestors as the Lumbee. Jas392 (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Persons of Color

Currently the Lead says that FPOC indicates "uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and Native American blood" without proper citation. Again, I don't disagree with the triracial bit but this assertion unfairly makes all parts seem equal. For starters, the census in 1790 didn't have a category for Native American; the census bureau says "the six inquiries in 1790 called for the name of the head of the family and the number of persons in each household of the following descriptions: Free White males of 16 years and upward (to assess the country’s industrial and military potential), free White males under 16 years, free White females, all other free persons (by sex and color), and slaves." See http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1790.htm. So, how the current assertion was arrived is too tenuous to be in Lead.

Insight can be gathered from the Lumbee case of State v. William Chavers in 1857 where the court found that FPOC may be "for all we can see, persons colored by Indian blood, or persons descended from Negro ancestors beyond the forth degree." On this, Campisi says that "for all intents and purposes, the free population of the state had three categories of race; white - being persons with no known Black or Indian ancestry; free Blacks - individuals with at least 1/16 Black ancestry; and FPOC - who either were of Indian ancestry or less than 1/16 Black." Note: less than 1/16, as in not equal parts. But don't just trust Campisi, Dr. Swanton of the Smithsonian Institution reported to Indian Affairs in 1933 that among FPOC "were to be included principally free Negroes and Indians...[and] would be more likely to contain the Indians." In Pierce's 1912 report to Indian Affairs, he says that "until 1835 they were allowed to vote, owned slaves, built churches and school houses, and lived very comfortably after the manner of their white neighbors. In the year 1835 the state of NC denied the right to vote to all FPOC which of course included the Croatans. Against this very unjust Act the Croatans rebelled continuously, and it was not until 1885 when justice was given them..." There's plenty more, but I'm trying to keep this short and just get to the point that the Lead's assertion unfairly makes all parts seem equal.

According to the majority of sources on FPOC and its implications for Lumbee, the practical effect stressed has been that it excluded Lumbee ancestors from the white schools and they refused to send their children to Black schools for 50 years because of this classification until they got Indian schools, which made Lumbee ancestors of this period very uneducated (FYI education is a big deal for the Lumbee). McNickle wrote in 1936 about FPOC that from 1835 to 1885 "the State seems to have been determined to group her Indians with the Negro population. It insisted on their attending Negro schools and churches and being subject to all the discrimination which it had set up against the Negro race. It speaks strongly of the racial identity which these Indians have never lost cognizance of that they refused to associate with the Negroes in church and in school. For years they went untaught until, in 1885, due largely to the efforts of McMillan, they succeeded in getting separate schools established..." Similarly, in 1915 McPherson wrote about FPOC that "during this period they were not permitted to attend the schools for whites; there were practically no educational facilities open to the Indians at this time... Between 1868 and 1885 efforts were made to compel the Indians to attend the negro schools, but they persistently refused to this, preferring to grow up in ignorance rather than attend the colored schools. It would be more accurate to say that parents would not permit their children to attend negro schools, preferring rather that they should grow up in total ignorance. The children raised to manhood and womanhood during this period are the most densely ignorant of any of these people."

So, (1) we need to get rid of the "uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and Native American blood" part, because there is no cite and it carries a false implication that all parts are equal; and (2) if anything, the FPOC should be an accurate reflection of it's implications for the Lumbee as described above. Jas392 (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to this sentence, but it is easily fixed thusly: "a mixture of African, European, and Native American ancestry of uncertain tribal origins". Any and all of the standard cites will substantiate this version.Verklempt (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. This reads worse than equal parts; it implies a mixture of African, European, and some Indian, which is patently false. What "standard cites" do you refer to? Are you still betting the farm solely on Heinegg, DeMarce, and Gross? If so, please broaden your scope for the sake of this article and your own credibility. How about: "Native American and a mixture of European and African ancestry." The part about uncertain tribal origins misleads readers to think that because Lumbee ancestry cannot be traced to only one specific historic tribe (but many) that there is some doubt about their Indian heritage while it's certain that they're European and African. You have to see how this misleading. And I'm trying to convince myself that it's not deliberately misleading. I'd like to think we're having a fair discussion here. Jas392 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Nobody knows what the mixture is, and the entire notion of racial "admixture" is based on outdated and discredited pseudoscience anyway. (2) The Euro and African ancestry is well documented. The Indian ancestry is mostly hypothetical. (3) Nearly all of the scholarly cites present the tri-racial hypothesis.Verklempt (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take the opposite position that Indian ancestry is well documented while European and African ancestry is mostly hypothetical. Sure, the Indian ancestry can't be traced back to only one specific historic tribe, but who ever said you have to trace back to only one historic tribe? In fact, under the OFA's Procedures for Establishing That an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe, the mandatory criteria are that they "descend from an historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined." See 25 C.F.R. 83.7(e). The assertion that Indian ancestry is more controversial is right on one front - that it's uncertain exactly which tribes the Lumbee descend from - but overall there is no real controversy over whether they are in fact Indian. Your argument above seems to confuse the two. The fact of Indian ancestry has been well established for quite some time. I'll cite because I can, and anticipate the same in reciprocity. In 1885, the State of NC recognized the Lumbee ancestors as Indians. North Carolina General Assembly 1885, chap. 51. In 1890, the feds responded that due to provision constraints they could not provide services for "the Croatans or any other civilized tribes." Letter to W.L. Moore, August 11, 1890; Dept. of Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. In 1912, Pierce concluded that "there are but few full bloods among the Croatans, although one would readily class a large majority as being at least three fourths indian." Charles F. Pierce Report: Record Group 75, Entry 121, Central Classified Files, 23202-1912-Cherokee School-123. In 1914, Special Indian Agent McPherson reported that they are "generally white, showing the Indian mostly in actions and habits." Senate Doc. #677, 63rd Congress, 3rd Session, Page #7. In 1924, Henderson wrote that "there are many to be found among them that are full blood Indians." National Archives 93807-1923-Cherokee School-150 (James Henderson Report). In 1933, Swanton wrote that "the evidence available thus seems to indicate that the Indians of Robeson County who have been called Croatan and Cherokee are descended mainly from certain Siouan tribes of which the most prominent were the Cheraw and Keyauwee, but they probably included as well remnants of the Eno, an Shakori, and very likely some of the coastal groups such as the Waccamaw and Cape Fears. It is not improbable that a few families or small groups of Algonquian and Iroquian connection may have cast their lot with this body of people." Dr. J.R. Swanton, Probable Identity of the "Croatan" Indians; Dept. of Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. In 1935, Baker (the guy who just did the EBC rolls right before this assessment) wrote "that they possess Indian blood is beyond question. It is clear that there has also been a large infusion of white blood of English and Scotch extraction principally. Family names indicate to me also an admixture of Spanish blood. It is conceded also by members of the tribe that there has been an infiltration of negro blood also. But this occurred many years ago. During recent years the two races, Indian and negro, have lived rigidly aloof." Baker Report on Siouan, #36208, File # 340, Dept. of Interior, Office of Indian Affairs (6/3/1935). In 1936, McNickle wrote "that they are Indians can not be doubted. in a representative crowd of them one will find many individuals who could very easily be placed upon a western reservation and be quite at home so far as appearances go. Others of them are predominantly white and still others decidely negroid." And "intermarriage with the white race has been prohibited since 1854, and undoubtedly there has been a gradual recovery of the Indian strain in most families; likewise, the prohibition against intermarriage with Negroes must be diminishing the degree of that racial mixture." McNickle, Re: Indians of Robeson County; Dept. of Interior, Office of Indian Affairs (4/7/1936).

You should notice that I have not only been very thorough with numerous cites, but I have also been very even-handed in trying to represent any instances of mention of white and black mixes and to what degree. These cites show that it has never been doubted that the Lumbee are Indian first and foremost. Well, maybe Heinegg, DeMarce, or Gross would say something along those lines but it flies in the face of the majority of evidence. Regardless, I'm interested to see what cites you may have from these three showing that African or European ancestry is even as nearly as certain as the numerous accounts above. All of the cites I give support the notion that Indian ancestry is not controversial beyond precise origin. (1) Now, it's your turn to show that it is controversial whether the Lumbee are Indian beyond precise origin. (2) It's also your turn to demonstrate that all parts are equal, because all of the cites above demonstrate that the Lumbee are first and foremost Indian. You have never provided cites for the contrary. Jas392 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) When I use the word "evidence", I refer to primary historical sources, not to secondary publications. There are many authors who present speculations about Lumbee Indian ancestry. I give little credence to speculative works. Heinegg and DeMarce are the gold standard, because their work is based on primary source historical research, not speculation. (2) As I wrote a day or two ago, the concept of racial "admixture" is based on outmoded science. If you want to go down that road, then William Pollitzer is the gold standard, with Carl Setltzer right after him. I think this literature deserves mention, but I don't think it deserves much credence.Verklempt (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) We've been over this. Mr Hurt and I have given numerous specific examples of speculation in Heinegg's constructions.David F Lowry (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Replace the word "evidence" with "source." It makes no difference to me how you phrase it. But it seems you're trying to say that government documents on the particular subject are less of a primary source than when an individual studying something else analyzes other government documents? I think you have the government officials mixed up with the "authors," as the root of this fundamental disconnect. And you have the primary source material that government officials create mixed up with your authors' analysis as secondary sources. I hope you can see the distinction, but I do gather that you agree more with the conclusions formulated by H and D. That does not make them a primary source no matter how convoluted you twist things, and certainly not any more credible than actual primary sources where a slew of them are in general consensus. (2) I like Seltzer - he found 22 half-blood Indians using a high standard while only looking at a small fraction of the population, which is more than most tribes can claim (EBC's rolls were 1/16 and I heard it's down to 1/32 now, and that's the current trend throughout Indian Country). Maybe you will be kind enough to quote/cite me something from Pollitzer that refutes anything I wrote above? Regardless, we all know that there are no perfect test for determining blood quantum, yet at least. I can only invite you to Robeson County and show you the Indian community, then let you tell me whether it's equal parts. Until then, I've cited numerous credible sources to support my position specifically here as well other places of this discussion while no one has refuted them with specific quotes/cites. You need to start answering these sources I supply with your own, or concede to stop bringing in your OR and POV as distractions that we've already been over. Jas392 (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between primary and secondary sources makes a difference to historians, and anyone else who is concerned about validity in historical research. Heinegg and DeMarce conducted research among primary sources. There is really no question about this. None of the other sources you cite conducted primary research on this particular question. In fact, most of them are highly politicized documents of the Jim Crow era. They are worthy of study, but they are not useful for determining Lumbee origins.Verklempt (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of my cites cite to primary sources because they are primary sources. I don't understand what argument you have left, but you apparently have something to say. Please be more direct. We're talking about my cites as primary sources, and there's really no debate there. Get to the point. Jas392 (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) BTW, there's nothing you're going to be able to tell me about being a historian. Go ask your undergrad professor, then we can continue this ridiculous debate about the distinction between primary and secondary sources. [sorry guys, I had to get that out]. Jas392 (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain the relevant difference between your early 20th century gov docs, and the sources used by Heinegg and Demarce. Heinegg and Demarce are analyzing 17th and 18th century documents created by or about the people they are researching -- the Lumbee ancestors. None of the sources you cite have done such extensive research in contemporaneous primary sources, and most have done no research at all in contemporaneous sources. There is no question that the Lumbee ancestors of the 17th and 18th centuries had a public social status as FPC. That's what the documents show. None of the scholarly sources disagree with this.Verklempt (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, none of my cites cite to primary sources because they are primary sources (this is going to click for you soon, I'm sure). The census and most other docs you refer to as being used by H & D didn't have an "American Indian" category for non-tribal Indians until 1870, and the Lumbee weren't recognized as a tribe until 1885. So I'm not surprised they were labeled as they were, and H & D took these labels at face value then ran with it. Moreover, two secondary sources aren't going to stand up against eight or so primary sources, especially when the secondary sources aren't even on topic. Jas392 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The census categories are not relevant here. There was no federal census in the 17th and 18th centuries, save the 1790. Heinegg's research is mostly in colonial records. What primary sources do you have from the 17th and 18th centuries that label Lumbee ancestors as Indians? What secondary sources do you have that cite 17th and 18th century primary sources labeling Lumbee ancestors as Indians? Is this problem clicking for you yet?Verklempt (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have supplied numerous credible primary sources for my position. H & D are not only in the minority here, they're secondary sources of another topic for all I can tell. Please supply quotes/cites for your position (I've made this valid request several times now). The article is going to be revised, so you need to supply something for your position. I don't think any legit administrator can argue against my forthcoming, even-handed contributions. Yours will need to be substantiated in this space, and you have not even begun the process of doing that yet. Jas392 (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what kind of cites you are asking for. There is no dispute in the literature that the Lumbee ancestors were nearly always recorded as FPC, mulatto, not Indian. All of the scholarly sources support this, and they are already in the article. I also don't understand why you think that Heinegg and DeMarce are off-topic. Their work demonstrates that there is very little Indian ancestry among the Lumbees. My understanding is that you are proposing a statement that privileges the Indian component of tri-racial ancestry, based on antique, Jim Crow-era gov docs that are highly politicized. I have no objection to citing those documents in this article. However, the lede should not take sides on an issue that is contested in the scholarly literature.Verklempt (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote/cite something for the notion that H & D "demonstrates that there is very little Indian ancestry among the Lumbees." It's amazing that you're still holding on to the notion that there is very little Indian ancestry among the Lumbee. Who brainwashed you, and have you ever even been to Pembroke? Along those lines, I'll point out that Helen Rountree, Pocahontas’s People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia through Four Centuries (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990) documents the one drop rule. So, if they had one drop of black blood, they were classified/enumerated in all documents as Negro overall. H & D fail to take this into account. Jas392 (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I don't understand your first request. Are you asking for a book review of Heinegg or DeMarce? What's the purpose of that? (2) Your understanding of the "one-drop rule" is weak. It is mostly a creation of the Jim Crow era. It certainly was not pertinent in the 17th and 18th centuries.Verklempt (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not necessary for me to chase tails with you anymore. H & D are no longer the dominant theme of this article. Jas392 (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They never were the dominant theme. But you would still profit by reading them someday.Verklempt (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read Heinegg because it's available online. He only looked at a few of my ancestors (the ones with tenuous ties to African heritage or slavery both directly and indirectly with Indian and African lumped together under "colored"), ignored all the rest of my ancestors, then apparently concluded that my people invented their Indian ancestry. Needless to say, I wasn't convinced. But the work is appropriately titled, which is why I keep saying that it's off-topic. Moreover, I didn't find it surprising at all that he didn't find any Indians when he wasn't looking for Indians to begin with. That's like not finding any Egyptians on the North Pole, then concluding that aliens must have built the pyramids. Jas392 (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misrepresenting Heinegg's approach. He is attempting to construct a massive genealogy of all free people of color on the mid-Atlantic coast, including the various non-tribal Indians. He usually stops after 1800, so he's not going to have anyone's complete family tree. It's not his fault that the Lumbee ancestors aren't recorded as Indians in the historical record. If you have colonial-era data that he's missing, send it to him. He'll check it against the cites, and if it checks out he'll put it up.Verklempt (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was totally the aliens. Jas392 (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you can react to cognitive dissonance with humor. Most of your predecessors in this space have degenerated into ad hominem when confronted with the historical record.Verklempt (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dissonance, my friend, is in Heinegg's methodology. You can't cite documents referring to "coloreds" and "mulattos," then put them all under the category of "free African Americans." That's poor scholarship. There's too many holes to reference here (the real debate here has already been settled), but I'll be certain to point them out to appropriate people. Jas392 (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-identification Prior to 1885

Seems there was a lively discussion two years ago under the "Disputed Article Tag" regarding Lumbee ancestors' lack of self-identification prior to 1885. I don't think this has any bearing on the current article, but I wanted to point out for future reference that:

McNickle wrote in 1936 that from 1835 to 1885 "the State seems to have been determined to group her Indians with the Negro population. It insisted on their attending Negro schools and churches and being subject to all the discrimination which it had set up against the Negro race. It speaks strongly of the racial identity which these Indians have never lost cognizance of that they refused to associate with the Negroes in church and in school. For years they went untaught until, in 1885, due largely to the efforts of McMillan, they succeeded in getting separate schools established..." Similarly, in 1915 McPherson wrote that "during this period they were not permitted to attend the schools for whites; there were practically no educational facilities open to the Indians at this time... Between 1868 and 1885 efforts were made to compel the Indians to attend the negro schools, but they persistently refused to do this, preferring to grow up in ignorance rather than attend the colored schools. It would be more accurate to say that parents would not permit their children to attend negro schools, preferring rather that they should grow up in total ignorance. The children raised to manhood and womanhood during this period are the most densely ignorant of any of these people." Moreover, Henderson concurred with McLean's conclusion that ""whatever the origin of the Indians of this community was, it is certain that from the first settlement they have been separated from the other inhabitants of that region and are of Indian descent, with Indian characteristics, with complexion, features, and hair of the Indian race..." I'll also draw your attention again to Vine Deloria's statement that "formal tribal government is a creation of the BIA and not an Indian characteristic. A traditional Indian community more closely resembles what we find in Robeson County among the Lumbee, large extended families who exert social and political control over family members, and who see their family as part of an extended people. This method of government, incidentally, is the only valid and viable way to control human behavior apart from a massive prison system such as we have in the US today."

But the point can more aptly be made by asking what instances existed prior to 1885 where the Lumbee ancestors could self-identify? Someone earlier mentioned the Catawba and the Cherokee as being able to self-identify during this time period, so I'm curious how it is that they self-identified. Jas392 (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The received myth on schooling is problematic. Do you know of any public schools in Robeson prior to the Civil War? Public schooling is a post-war development. And after the war, many children of Lumbee ancestors did attend colored schools, according to the census. They didn't segregate out until 1885. (2) Cherokee and Catawba are enumerated as such on the federal census and numerous other official documents and unofficial documents and narratives. The Cherokees even published their own tribal newspaper.Verklempt (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Public Schools After the Civil War - I'll repeat that McPherson said, "Between 1868 and 1885 efforts were made to compel the Indians to attend the negro schools, but they persistently refused to do this, preferring to grow up in ignorance rather than attend the colored schools. It would be more accurate to say that parents would not permit their children to attend negro schools, preferring rather that they should grow up in total ignorance." All of the references above to 1835 thru 1885 are from discussions about FPOC, and none of it contradicts the notion that public schools didn't exist prior to the war (I don't know this to be true, but I'll accept it for now as moot). Jas392 (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Please see Mr. Lowry's comment and link below regarding the continuous presence of public education in NC since 1840. Jas392 (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Numerous credible cites to the absolute contrary cannot be pushed aside by an uncited statement that "many children of Lumbee ancestors did attend colored schools." I'll give you that perhaps a few did, but that's not "many" and it certainly does not refute the numerous credible cites I've offered. If anything, everything I've found indicates that a few actually went to white schools, but never black schools. I don't claim to have done an exhaustive research, but I think I would have come across this by now if it really was "many." (2) I have already supplied numerous cites to official documents and narratives. Sorry there wasn't a newspaper until later on. This argument not only demonstrates your bias but is also moot regardless, as it does not pertain to any part of the article or carry any factual relevance. If you would prefer that it carry some relevance in the article, I welcome that notion, because as you can see I have plenty of credible cites to the contrary. Jas392 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't stoop to ad hominem. You've been doing so well up until now. I have been trying to help you learn more about Lumbee history, which is not recorded accurately in the old cites you're always putting up here. I do not know that anyone has gone into print to correct the mythical version of school segregation prior to 1885, but that myth will get revised eventually.Verklempt (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is moot. I have cites. Numerous cites. You have none. And I get criticized for taking offense when this has been going on for over two years here already. There will be a change here. Promise. You can no longer push aside credible evidence by calling it "mythical" and saying that it "will get revised eventually." Good thing Wikipedia has standards, and I intend to hold you to them. Jas392 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have no disagreement on what the current consensus in the literature is re pre-1885 school segregation. You're absolutely correct that the article should reflect your cites -- even though they contain erroneous information. However, if you want to know the truth about this issue, I've given you the road map. There are two discussions going on here. One is about how to edit the article, and the other is about the quality of the relevant sources. Usually the two discussion overlap, but sometimes they diverge. Don't take it personally.Verklempt (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't stoop to ad hominem. You've been doing so well up until now. I have been trying to help you learn more about Lumbee history,.... This is patronization, carries no information content that is relevant to this article, and is in itself an ad hominem attack on another editor. Please refrain.David F Lowry (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread here with a substantive debate going on. You're welcome to join in.Verklempt (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A permanent school fund was established in 1825. On Jan. 7, 1839, a law was passed whereby individual counties could vote yea or nay on publicly funded schools for their county. The law provided for one school per 36 acres per county. The schools were to be funded by local taxation and the permanent fund mentioned above. The establishment of schools reportedly failed only in Rowan, Lincoln, Yancey, Davidson, Edgecombe, Wayne and Columbus counties. Aside from a few years following the war, there has been a continuous presence of public education since 1840. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=h7AHAAAAMAAJ&dq=history+of+public+education+in+North+Carolina David F Lowry (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscarora

Currently, the Lead says that more recently "the Lumbees have claimed to be an offshoot of the Tuscarora and Cheraw." While the Lumbee generally descend from many tribes including the Tuscis and Cheraw, the Tuscis are a separate faction of their own in Robeson and adjoining counties (there are plenty of cites for this if necessary... they have petitioned on their own since the 1980s), and it is more accurate to say that the Lumbee claim to be descendants of the Cheraw. In fact, Cheraw has been the general consensus among historians and anthropologists since at least Mooney and Swanton. Also see McNickel for the evolution of Lumbee origins (he credits Swanton and Mooney for the Cheraw theory and disagrees with the McPherson/McMillan camp about the Croatan bit). All in all, it's just inaccurate to say "more recently" that the Lums claim descent from the Tuscarora, at least without a proper cite. Jas392 (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how to fix it: "During the second half of the 20th century, a significant minority faction of the Robeson County Indian population has claimed descent from the Tuscarora Indians, and rejected the Lumbee identity. The Tuscarora and Lumbee factions represent a recent political cleavage among the Robeson County Indians, since members of both factions descend from the same ancestral population."Verklempt (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i concur, with one modification: "rejected the Lumbee identity for themselves." Otherwise it sounds like the Tuscis are discrediting indian ancestry for the entire tribe, when in fact they just want to be a separate group under what they think is the proper name. I can't cite this, but I grew up in a Tuscarora church with all of my Tuscarora cousins and they would never claim that all of the folks calling themselves Lumbee today are not Indian, it's just the identifier on them that they disagree with. Jas392 (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1956

The Lead currently says, "In 1956, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 4656, known as the Lumbee Act, which acknowledged the claimed Native American origin of the Lumbees but withheld recognition of the group as a "tribe." The Lumbee Act is a major stumbling block to desired federal recognition. The Lumbees are not eligible to apply for federal recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.[1][2] Recognition is opposed by several recognized tribes." I admittedly have certain biases on the subject, but I also have requirements about certain language when we're talking in Indian law. I agree with the overall accuracy of the paragraph as-is, but it's language drastically needs to be cleaned up.

(1) "In 1956, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 4656, known as the Lumbee Act, which acknowledged the claimed Native American origin of the Lumbees but withheld recognition of the group as a "tribe."" For starters, the 1956 Act says nothing about a tribe. It does talk about Indian services, however. And every journal article, textbook, etc that speaks about the 1956 Act specifically all mentions the prohibitions of services, not some tenuous implication that federal government was in denial that they are a tribe. Please see the voluminous congressional record from 1887 to the present wherein the feds never deny that this is a tribe, yet withhold Indian services (we can get into why that is later). I propose: Template:In 1956, Congress passed the Lumbee Act which acknowledged the Native American origin of the Lumbee Tribe but prohibited application of federal Indian statutes to the tribe and further prohibited Indian services to the tribe as well. I don't understand why it's necessary to say "claimed...origin." It seems we all agree here that there is at least some Native American origin, and the feds certainly don't deny it. As for the HR 4656 part, we can cite to that... it's distracting to the reader. And the latter part about Indian statutes and services comes verbatim from the 1956 Act, but I'm willing to shorten it to Indian services if you like.

(2) "The Lumbee Act is a major stumbling block to desired federal recognition." This is actually funny... sorry, I'll explain. The 1956 Act is actually what keeps the Lumbee out of the tortuous OFA regulatory process, where they would be locked up for decades and millions of dollars. It's what keeps them in the legislative process and separates them as unique in that regard. So, it's not really a stumbling block to fed. rec. as much as it is a saving grace in the minds of Lumbee leaders. I move to strike this sentence completely, if not for inaccuracy but for POV.

(3) "The Lumbees are not eligible to apply for federal recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.[1][2]" I'm okay with this statement but in order for it to make sense, it needs to reference the Solicitor's opinion of 1989 stating that the 1956 Act prohibits the federal relationship, which is why this statement is true.

(4) "Recognition is opposed by several recognized tribes." Okay. The article can discuss further in the body per our previous discussion here about who opposes and why they do.

I have not made changes yet, because I do agree with the overall accuracy of this paragraph, and I will wait for you timely response to the issues I raised here. Jas392 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are problems with this passage. The Lumbee Act essentiallty does recognize the tribe. It just denies federal services. Here's a new draft: {{"In 1956, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 4656, known as the Lumbee Act, which recognized the Lumbees as an Indian tribe. However the Act also specifically prohibited the Lumbees from receiving federal services ordinarily provided to tribes through the BIA. Since the 1980s, the Lumbee tribe has repeatedly attempted without success to gain access to BIA services by changing its federal status via Congressional legislation.}}Verklempt (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) 1956 didn't recognize them as a tribe; they were recognized as American Indians though. (2) The Lumbee, not the Lumbees. (3) Actually, they've been petitioning for Indian services since 1888. According to a Congressional Research Service report that examined the period since 1973 alone, they also petitioned in 1974 and 1975, so not just the 1980s, much less what may have happened in the 1960s, 50s, 40s and so forth. (4) "repeatedly" sounds a little POV, don't you think? (5) should read "ordinarily provided to federally recognized tribes" because the Lumbee do qualify for federal services for state-recognized tribes. How about this: {{"In 1956, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 4656, known as the Lumbee Act, which recognized the Lumbee as American Indians. However the Act also specifically prohibited the Lumbee from receiving federal services ordinarily provided to federally recognized tribes through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As the only tribe in this circumstance, the Lumbee have sought full federal recognition through congressional legislation.}} Im amiable to removing the language that says "as the only tribe in this circumstance" if you insist. Jas392 (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your version is fine with me. I do wonder about how to substantiate the "only tribe" bit.Verklempt (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cites for that. Congressional records as well as law review articles. Jas392 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional records also show that in testimony related to the 1956 Act, Lumbee spokesmen consistently said that they did not want any financial services, that they understood what they were saying, and that they only wanted the recognition as American Indians. You have consistently ignored that when I brought it up before. It is fine to say tribal members changed their minds, but it is a part of the historical record that is distorted by the above account which you are promoting. You suggest that in 1956 the federal government arbitrarily and unfairly decided to deprive the Lumbee of financial services, not that that was a condition of recognition which tribal leaders agreed to. Every generation gets to change its mind; that's what Congress is about, but you may as well tell the whole story.--Parkwells (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you just read the 110th Senate Report? Well, let me just tell you that that report was doctored to not "tell the whole story." I grant you that one man from the Lumbee testified before Congress in 1956 that they did not want to be "wards" of the federal government. But the doctored implication from this is that the Lumbee did not want federal recognition in 1956 and all they wanted was to be given their name. First of all, the Lumbee people didn't understand the difference between being "given their name" becoming "wards of the feds" and being "federally recognized for Indian services." [This has all led to why I am who I am today.] First of all, you have to understand that these people surely did not want to be wards of the feds, all they wanted was Indian services for their school and later rehabilitation of their farms in the 1930s, then later control of their schools during desegregation. Let's just agree that what they wanted generally was "federal recognition for Indian services." Now, if the Lumbee didn't really want federal recognition for Indian services, then why did 54 tribal members travel all the way to DC in 1888 asking for assistance of their Indian Normal School and the 25 district Indian schools? Why did james Chavis of the Siouan Tribal Council travel to DC in 1935 seeking help from the Indian Rehabilitation and Resettlement Administration to secure farming land for them? See letter from William Zimmerman, Asst. Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Fred A. Baker (6/13/1935). You'll note that this trip led to an assessment of available land in Robeson County as well as very detailed needs of each Lumbee head of households at the time. This also led to Seltzer's 1/2 blood study for purposes of organizing under the Indian Reorganization Act (22 were identified and the IRA only required 10). Unfortunately there was a split in the tribe over what to be called - once again this theme of not being from only one tribe has been the major obstacle to Lumbee federal recognition once you look deeper than side story of African American heritage. Anyway, here are my cites: In 1936, McNickle wrote that "recently they have been split into two factions over the question of their rightful name, but so genuine is their desire to be recognized as Indians that they may be counted upon not to permit a factional dispute to interfere with the task of enrolling them." "Enrollment for these people will mean the first step in the rehabilitation of their dignity as a people... feeling that they have a right to their own destiny, I urge that some method be worked out to meet the legal requirements necessary for recognition of these Indians of Robeson County." A month later, McNickle wrote "it is well to remember that representatives of these Indians have been appealing to the Office of Indian Affairs since 1888. Two requests have been reiterated constantly: educational assistance and recognition as Indians." So, while I agree that that one Lumbee man testified before Congress in 1956 that they did not want to be "wards," this notion alone distorts the "whole story" more so. Besides, several contemporaneous news articles even reported the bill as a recognition bill. Also, there was the "Great Parade of 1956' in Pembroke because all the Lumbee actually thought they were fully recognized. It was a sham during the termination era, but it's not the first time Indian people have been taken advantage of because they didn't know the legal ropes. Jas392 (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for waiting for some sort of consensus on this issue before changing the article, Parkwells. I'll wait to get feedback from the others on how to handle this. Jas392 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you had agreed before that they had testified as I stated on that issue in 1956, I misunderstood that you agreed to the change I made. In addition, you said that if I wanted changes that said some Congressional reps urged an amendment to the Act to enable Lumbee to go through the process, the change must also reflect that GAO and other critics said the process was burdensome and subject to delays and backlogs, as well as Lumbee stating they did not want to deal with those delays. That's what I put in. My apologies to everyone. I was not clear that every word had to be agreed to here. I have never been through such a detailed process on an article. In terms of GAO criticism, GAO exists to review and evaluate government programs - and to identify problems. That does not mean that processes with problems are solved by petitioners' seeking direct Congressional action.

In one place on this page, we are recommended to rely on Congressional Reports; in another told that they were doctored. If this assertion were to be included, it would need its own cites. I think that is why Verklempt was recommending other than political sources. Maybe this is not the article in which to get into every nuance of the Lumbee recognition struggle, as fascinating as it is. To my understanding, neither Verklempt nor I thought or said that African American heritage was any bar to recognition for the Lumbee; rather, we thought (and most scholars support) that early 19th c. history of the Lumbee as a multiracial group was more ambiguous than later accounts suggest and is worthy of coverage in itself, not just in terms of the later 20th c. struggle for recognition and the effort since the later 19th century to have one story. As Gross' article notes, different multiracial groups had different strategies in the 19th c. and since. Like numerous other tribes in the late 20th and 21st c., the Narragansett too have become more restrictive and purged individuals who had previously been members, unlike their earlier positions of saying their nation included anyone with one drop of Indian blood. I was not interested in confining discussion of the Lumbee especially to 20th c. anthropological studies and petitions to Congress. --Parkwells (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will address your concerns in turn. (1) Nobody ever said that "processes with problems are solved by petitioners' seeking direct Congressional action" but when there are only two options - legislative and regulatory - and one of them is clearly unworkable, you tend to take the other. I agree with your point though, and maybe this part of the article would best be clarified by a sentence on the 1989 Solicitor's opinion that bars the Lumbee from the regulatory route anyway. (2) I stand by congressional reports as reliable, even the 110th Senate Report. These reports are generally free of misinformation, and my only concern was that this one piece would distort the "whole story." How I know that this particular report was doctored should not be discussed in this forum. My only hope is that the article reflect the whole story now, but we really didn't have to get into all of this in the article. (3) I never intended my "doctored" assertion be included in the article. I'll tone it down. (4) Again, this is a political entity. To disregard the congressional record would be foolish. (5) I don't think every nuance is necessary either, but you're making it difficult not to include everything when the article only focuses on the little negative bits (i.e. one man's testimony in 1956 that the tribe didn't want to be "wards" for the idea that the Lumbee never really wanted federal recognition or Indian services in the first place). (6) Nobody on the hill will ever say it, but everyone knows that the "one drop of black blood" rule still exists in the minds of some elected officials. If nothing else, African American heritage is a bar to fed. rec. in that this is the root of EBC opposition and they are the ones funding the political opposition, vehemently. Just look at some of the comments in this discussion about how the Lumbee are black and thus not Native American. It persists, but I concur that this article should not only focus on the recognition effort. And (7) the disambiguation you mention should also play a role, however, I doubt that it should take the dominant position that it now enjoys. Jas392 (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my apologies to the editors. I had been spending too much time on the Talk page and didn't look closely at the restrictions on the article page. Despite editing experience on numerous articles, I thought Jas392's use of the Templates in red was a personal way of setting out alternatives. We continue to learn. --Parkwells (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We've been following the template restriction loosely anyway. Mostly just whenever the main parties to a discussion agree on a middle ground is fine, I think. As for this testimony that has been added to the article with its inaccurate implications, I only see two routes: (1) take it out, or (2) clarify it by putting it in proper perspective of the history of Lumbee efforts for Indian services, both before and after 1956. I'm open to suggestions. I noticed it's under the "Petitioning for Federal Recognition" section anyway, so Template:Maybe this would be a good place to recount the history of the recognition effort, at least to list the years more accurately and highlight what they sought specifically each time. I am willing to supply much of the information on that and let you guys rid it of an inaccuracies or POV language you may find. And I would leave what's there substantively unchanged. Jas392 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Position of the KKK story

I totally agree that this should be in a different section rather than under Federal petitioning. I think it should be under its own section header, in terms of the size of the header, not a sub under the other. It follows the 1956 Act in time, but doesn't have anything to do with the larger topic.--Parkwells (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More revisionist history

Native American? Ha! It's really sad how blacks always claim to be anything other than just black. You really can't blame them, however pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.220.217 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson wrote in 1923 that "there is a common belief among those who have never known these people that they are mainly negro in blood. This is erroneous. There are many to be found among them who to all appearances are full blood Indians. Many of them are very dark from the blood inherited no doubt from the Spanish and Portuguese who amalgamated with them many years ago. The Spanish and South Mediterranean blood crops out in their swiftness to kill when angered. Such a thing as a personal combat with the fist is almost unthought of among them." There's more, but you're not worth it. I think you get the point anyway, which is why you didn't want to be identified. Jas392 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com

I've been trying to figure out a way to clean up the body of this article in an even-handed way. I came across this description of Lumbee "Origins and Legends" from answers.com (they had it listed as the wikipedia article, but it seems like all they did was clean it up to make it even-handed and generally accurate; the only inaccuracy I found was where they say that the 1956 Act recognized the Lumbee as a tribe, which I can forgive because that's a technical Indian law nuance). Anyway, let me know what objections anyone has to changing the "Origins and Legends" section as this:

This is the original. Don't make changes here.

The first recorded reference as to the origins of the present-day Lumbee population was made in a petition by 36 white Robeson County residents in 1840, in which they described ancestors of the Lumbee as being a "free colored" population that migrated originally from the districts round-about the Roanoke and Neuse Rivers (Sider's "Living Indian Histories" page 173). The first attempt at assigning any specific tribal designation to them was made in 1867 when, under investigation by Lieutenant Birney of the Freedmen's Bureau for the murder of several Lumbee ancestors, pastors Coble and McKinnon wrote a letter claiming descent of the Lowry gang from Tuscarora: "They are said to be descended from the Tuscarora Indians. They have always claimed to be Indian & disdained the idea that they are in any way connected with the African race." [2] In 1872 George Alfred Townsend published "The Swamp Outlaws" in reference to the famed Lowrie Gang. Townsend described Henry Berry Lowrie, the leader of the gang, as being of mixed Tuscarora, mulatto, and white blood: "The color of his skin is of a whitish yellow sort, with an admixture of copper- such a skin as, for the nature of its components, is in color indescribable, there being no negro blood in it except that of a far remote generation of mulatto, and the Indian still apparent." Townsend also stated in reference to Pop Oxendine that "Like the rest, he had the Tuscarora Indian blood in him...If I should describe the man by the words nearest my idea I should call him a negro-Indian gypsy."[3] Townsend's statements would be reiterated three years later in both the Memoirs of General Jno C. Gorman and in Mary Normant's "The Lowrie History."

In 1885, Hamilton McMillan theorized that the Lumbees were the descendants of England's "Lost Colony" who intermarried with the Hatteras, an Algonquian people.[4] A number of other authors subsequently repeated McMillan's speculation as fact.

However, no extant evidence exists for "Lost Colony" origins. Of the many characteristically Lumbee names, few are shared with members of England's failed colony. While some modern day Lumbees continue to subscribe to this theory, the vast majority of Lumbees discredit the notion of "Lost Colony" origins.

In Robeson County, Lumbee ancestors were only officially classified as Indian after Reconstruction in 1885. Prior to 1885, Lumbee ancestors were usually described as colored, free colored, other free, mullato, mustie, mustees, or mixt blood in surviving records. Despite the lack of direct genealogical proof, various Department of Interior representatives such as Charles F. Pierce (1912), O.M. McPherson (1914), Fred Baker (1935), and D'Arcy McNickle (1936); various Smithsonian Institute ethnologists such John Reed Swanton (1930s), Dr. William Sturtevant (1960s), and Dr. Samuel Stanley (1960s); in conjunction with Anthropologists such as Gerald Sider and Karen Blu; all acknowledge the Lumbee as a Native American people. In the first federal census of 1790, the ancestors of the Lumbee were enumerated as Free Persons of Color. The U.S. Census did not have an "American Indian" category for non-tribal Indians until 1870. Instead, it recorded tribal censuses separately from the federal census. Because the Lumbee ancestors were not formally organized as an Indian tribe until 1885, they were enumerated in the federal census, usually as "mulatto." Up until the 1960 census, census enumerators often categorized individuals themselves, thereby determining the race of a particular individual.

Genealogists Paul Heinegg and Dr. Virginia E. DeMarce have, using an array of primary source documents, been able to trace the migration of some primary Lumbee ancestral families from the Tidewater region in Virginia into Northeastern North Carolina and then down into present-day Robeson County, North Carolina. Taking historic racial classifications placed on these ancestral families at face value, Heinegg and DeMarce have theorized that ancestral Lumbees were the descendants of mixed-race unions of Europeans in Virginia, who then migrated south into North Carolina along common routes of colonial expansion.[5]

In 1972, Dr. William Pollitzer published a study of gene frequencies in the Lumbee population. He concluded that the Lumbees have about 47 percent African ancestry, 40 percent white, and 13 percent Indian.[6]

This is the Suggested Revision. Make changes here, preferably after some sort of consensus. Jas392 (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first recorded reference as to the origins of the present-day Lumbee population was made in a petition by 36 white Robeson County residents in 1840, in which they described ancestors of the Lumbee as being a "free colored" population that migrated originally from the districts round-about the Roanoke and Neuse Rivers (Sider's "Living Indian Histories" page 173). (-The first attempt at assigning any specific tribal designation to them was made)- delete . In 1867, under investigation by Lieutenant Birney of the Freedmen's Bureau for the murder of several Lumbee ancestors, pastors Coble and McKinnon wrote a letter [repeating local hearsay about] descent of the Lowry gang from Tuscarora: "They are said to be descended from the Tuscarora Indians. They have always claimed to be Indian & disdained the idea that they are in any way connected with the African race." [2] In 1872 George Alfred Townsend published "The Swamp Outlaws" in reference to the famed Lowrie Gang. Townsend described Henry Berry Lowrie, the leader of the gang, as being of mixed Tuscarora, mulatto, and white blood: "The color of his skin is of a whitish yellow sort, with an admixture of copper- such a skin as, for the nature of its components, is in color indescribable, there being no negro blood in it except that of a far remote generation of mulatto, and the Indian still apparent." Townsend also stated in reference to Pop Oxendine that "Like the rest, he had the Tuscarora Indian blood in him...If I should describe the man by the words nearest my idea I should call him a negro-Indian gypsy."[3] Townsend's statements would be reiterated three years later in both the Memoirs of General Jno C. Gorman and in Mary Normant's "The Lowrie History." [These are all repetitions of local hearsay and attempts to classify the Lowries. It doesn't mean the people were accurate in their descriptions.]

In 1885, Hamilton McMillan theorized that the Lumbees were the descendants of England's "Lost Colony" who intermarried with the Hatteras, an Algonquian people.[4] A number of other authors subsequently repeated McMillan's speculation as fact.

However, no extant evidence exists for "Lost Colony" origins. Of the many characteristically Lumbee names, few are shared with members of England's failed colony. While some modern day Lumbees continue to subscribe to this theory, the vast majority of Lumbees discredit the notion of "Lost Colony" origins.

In Robeson County, Lumbee ancestors were only officially classified as Indian after Reconstruction in 1885. Prior to 1885, Lumbee ancestors were usually described as colored, free colored, other free, mullato, mustie, mustees, or mixt blood in surviving records. Despite the lack of direct genealogical proof, various Department of Interior representatives such as Charles F. Pierce (1912), O.M. McPherson (1914), Fred Baker (1935), and D'Arcy McNickle (1936); various Smithsonian Institute ethnologists such John Reed Swanton (1930s), Dr. William Sturtevant (1960s), and Dr. Samuel Stanley (1960s); in conjunction with Anthropologists such as Gerald Sider and Karen Blu; all acknowledged the Lumbee as a Native American people.

In the first federal census of 1790, the ancestors of the Lumbee were enumerated as Free Persons of Color. The U.S. Census did not have an "American Indian" category for non-tribal Indians until 1870. Instead, it recorded tribal censuses separately from the federal census. Because the Lumbee ancestors were not formally organized as an Indian tribe until 1885, they were enumerated in the federal census, usually as "mulatto." Up until the 1960 census, census enumerators were [often the ones to categorize] individuals, thereby determining the race of a particular individual. [In small towns, when the census enumerators knew people, they would also know how others thought they were classified.]

Genealogists Paul Heinegg and Dr. Virginia E. DeMarce have, using an array of primary source documents, been able to trace the migration of some primary Lumbee ancestral families from the Tidewater region in Virginia into Northeastern North Carolina and then down into present-day Robeson County, North Carolina. Using a variety of colonial and early 19th century records, (delete - (taking classifications placed on these ancestral families at face value), Heinegg and DeMarce have been able to [trace some ancestral Lumbees as descendants of mixed-race unions of Europeans] in Virginia, who then migrated south into North and South Carolina along common routes of colonial expansion.

In 1972, Dr. William Pollitzer published a study of gene frequencies in the Lumbee population. He concluded that the Lumbees have about 47 percent African ancestry, 40 percent white, and 13 percent Indian.[6] Jas392 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an older version lifted from Wikipedia. I think it's fine.Verklempt (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few suggestions for this material, but couldn't figure out how best to mark it. Jas must have the original. In relation to the 1867 case, I think the language - "the first attempt to assign a tribal classification" - should be deleted. This is simply the first time there is a record of a person describing the Lumbee as one kind of Indian or another; the pastors were repeating hearsay, not "trying to assign them a classification". Townsend's 1872 book was based on his impressions of what he thought by appearance and by community hearsay - that is part of the "performance" aspect which Gross wrote about.

In terms of the Heinegg-DeMarce portion, people have emphasized their use of census records (which also depended on someone using a combination of appearance and local knowledge to assign people to categories). Heinegg and DeMarce used a variety of records, however: deeds, wills, manumission records, court records, etc. that in differing ways often gave more information about people. I started making changes above. I believe "taking records at face value" should be deleted. They compared many different kinds of records in assessing them and building knowledge about families and individuals. Some of the records were related to actions, for instance, whether a family was liable for tithable taxes. In addition, they didn't just "theorize" about migration of certain individuals; they were able to follow families through land deeds and records. From that, yes, they had theories about the larger movement of populations, but it was based on specifics.--Parkwells (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't the Lumbee ancestors call themselves Indian in the 1870 or 1880 censuses? Maybe no one told them it was a possible category.--Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the census enumerator decided on the racial classification, based on personal knowledge, community reputation, appearance, etc. It was not until 1960 that people could consistently self-ID on the census. The few self-IDs I've found by Lumbee ancestors prior to 1885 generally claim FPC, colored, mixed race. I've never found a single Indian claim. The Freedman's Bureau letter from the two pastors is lost. Only one author has ever seen it. It's difficult to interpret a document that no one alive today has ever seen.Verklempt (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that they didn't. This discussion would be a whole lot more efficient if you guys could start using quotes/cites for your position. I've been kind enough to supply a wealth of them for my position, and you still haven't refuted a single one or established why a single one shouldn't take more of a dominant position than your secondary sources. We should aim for accuracy, not agendas.

(1) Accusing these accounts of "repeating local hearsay" is POV. (2) Similarly, I agree that "taking classifications placed on these ancestral families at face value" would also be POV, but I'll try to find something to cite for that notion... that's how I roll with the even-handed accuracy bit and all, you know, cites. (3) It seems apparent that I'm going to have to include all of my primary source quotes/cites in the article, because you seem so committed to ignorance of them and the lauding of these minority secondary sources. Jas392 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, we could settle (1) and (2) by saying that (1) was based on local hearsay and (2) was based on classifications taken at face value. All of that extra "These are all repetitions of local hearsay and attempts to classify the Lowries. It doesn't mean the people were accurate in their descriptions" is over the top though. Jas392 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In small towns, when the census enumerators knew people, they would also know how others thought they were classified" seems unnecessary, speculative, POV, and OR. Do we really want to get into a discussion of conjecture here regarding how many times this actually happened, how accurate it was, subjective biases, etc. Let's just let good enough be. And, please, let's all *try* not to let our own biases shine so bright. It will make this much more efficient for all of us, and probably create a better product that will last. Jas392 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We just are not talking about the same thing. One can just say, "In 1867 when investigated.... pastors so and so described people this way: ........". I don't think the qualifying language is appropriate. Similarly, in describing the Heinegg/De Marce work, one can say, [they] "used a variety of colonial and early 19th century records, including court records, tax records, land deeds, and censuses, to identify and trace migrations of early families, finding some were descendants of ....." That's a statement of fact from looking at the material on Heinegg's website - he has cites from the records. Your biases are showing as well, since you seem determined to discount all of their work. It does not have to be discounted or proved. It can simply be presented. I'll add more later.--Parkwells (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the "Origins and Legends" section needs to also cite the Congressional testimony of Judge Giles Leitch, wherein he describes the Robeson County population in general and the Lumbee ancestors in particular. His testimony begins on p. 283 of the reference: http://openlibrary.org/details/insurrectionstate02goverich

If I do not get a response in a reasonable time from the other editors, I'll take that as consensus and add it myself.David F Lowry (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]