I just recieved the note about the Eastern Band of Lenape in PA. I belong to
the Eastern Band of Delawares of Oklahoma. Our headquaters is in Bartlesville
Ok. Right now we are in the middle of war with the Cherokee Nation. Back in
1867 we signed a treaty with the Cherokees to buy our way into what was then
called Indian Territory AKA Cherokee Nation. We were guaranteed our soverign
nation status by this treaty since we paid the Cherokees $157,000. Back in
1975 then Chief of the Cherokee Ross Swimmer began a campaign of telling lies
and half truths to both Congress and the BIA that the Delawares had ceased to
exist as of 1867. He said we had ceased to have a tribal government. This was
a lie. At that time the Delawares had a Chief( my ancestor) and had
simi-regular meetings with the minutes going to the BIA. In 1979 based on
Swimmers statements the Delawares lost their Federal Recognition. We are
doing battle with both the Interior Dept. and the Cherokee Nation to redo
this unjust action. Any fellow Delawares that would like to help in this
cause may write to our Tribal Council in care of our Chief: Curtis Zuniga 108
Senca Bartlesville Ok 74003. While I don't need the U.S. Government to tell
me I'm a Delaware, we need the recognition to free up funds so that we can
become a progressive tribe in the next century.
Wanishi
Mickey (Sarcoxie) Morrison
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comments from NativeNet listowner, Gary Trujillo (gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us):
[ This note applies only to subscribers of the NATIVE-L mailing list. Those
reading this article via Usenet or one of the APC member systems should
ignore it, since it does not apply to your mode of receiving this article. ]
There is little precedent for this sort of article on the NATIVE-L list in
which a person who is a member of one tribe talks about a battle going on
with another tribe, though I'm sure this sort of thing is common in Indian
country.
My problem with the article relative to NATIVE-L is that it raises (or at
least it should raise) questions in the mind of the reader about what is
really going on here. In any dispute, there are always at least "two sides
to the story." As I have been stating in the comments I've been posting to
this list recently, I have defined NATIVE-L as being primarily to make
announcements concerning indigenous peoples topics, as well as to ask those
questions that cannot be easily answered by consulting standard reference
works. The problem, as I see it, with statements about grievances that one
group has against another is that they can easily incite a desire to carry
on an argument in this forum. Then I end up in the position of being open
to accusations that I am not providing an opportunity for untrue charges to
be answered if I decline to permit followups, or we wind up with a "flame
war" on our hands.
As I hope to explain in subsequent installments of my ongoing essay, the
reason I have defined the NATIVE-L list in the way I have is that I want
there to be a place to exchange important information free of the back-and-
forth kinds of rancorous discussions that seem to characterize some mailing
lists. When we began having some of these discussions on NATIVE-L several
years ago, I started the NATCHAT list just to provide a place for those
who want to talk about things, not just to exchange information. At the
present time, NATCHAT is being moderated by Jay Brummett (jay@utw.com), and
I seldom read what goes on there, since I have my hands full just handling
the other lists.
There are many subscribers who, for one reason or another, cannot keep up
with a high-volume mailing list and who do not want to have to spend time
sorting through articles that have to do with the mundane politics that
divides one group of people from another in their own minds. It is quite
legitimate for people to have an electronic forum to settle their differ-
ences, but that's not really what I want NATIVE-L to be.
My solution to this problem for the time being, I think, will be to permit
a very few responses to articles which make some statement of fact that is
open to question but to suggest that the discussion be continued on the
NATCHAT list if people still want to talk about it. Now that the NATIVE-L
archives available via the Web ("http://bioc02.uthscsa.edu/~gst/nl/"), it
is possible to move such discussions and refer NATCHAT readers who missed
the first part of the discussion to the archives to get familarized with
the basics of the issue under examination.
As to sort of issue raised by this article from mick51@aol.com (Mickey
Morrison), I'd like to refer readers back to the article to which Mickey
posted the article as a followup. The original article from bear@epix.net
(Laura Bear) says:
| Support Native Leaders, put aside internal and intertribal disputes and
| conflicts. We must stand together at this critical time. Division and
| conflict are our worst enemies. Send letters of support to your Native
| Leaders. Stand behind them in their effort to unite our bands, villages
| and Native Organizations...
I hope that those within the Eastern Band of Delawares and the Cherokee
Nation of Oklahoma that Mickey writes about as being in conflict with one
another can find a way to adopt a similar attitude to what is being reco-
mmended here by Laura and can work on settling their differences, rather
than keeping alive what sounds like a blood feud going back at least twenty
years. Perhaps those of you who know something about the situation can be
in touch with Mickey and offer possible approaches to achieve peace.
As I said above, I will permit a few responses to this article which might
help us all understand the situation a bit better.
Again, if anyone wants to write to me to offer suggestions of how to handle
these sorts of situations, please feel free to do so. (In that case, please
send a message to me at "gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us" rather than replying to the
message you receive from TAMVM1 containing this article. Usenet readers can
use "reply" rather than "followup" and those reading this article via one of
the APC member systems should use ",wrm" ("write-reply-mail") rather than
",wrc" ("write-reply-conference") at the "Conf?" prompt.)
Thanks.
Gary