Warren - Down and Dirty: Defamation of Children

Most people don't know it, but I have been unmercifully harassed and threatened behind the scenes through emails and private messages on facebook by Warren supporters and volunteers. (Yes, some even say publicly they are volunteers with her campaign.) There have also been attempts made online to damage my credibility. My team and I have gone ahead with our research and ignored it, but enough is enough. 

My family, especially my children, are not fair game. For the Warren supporters to think they can go after them and say the things they are saying is absolutely unacceptable. 

I am not a Brown supporter and I have no affiliation with his campaign. This isn't about Scott Brown. This is about the theft of Cherokee identity. I didn't start researching suspect Cherokee claims with Elizabeth Warren. The team and I have done other genealogies before her and will do others after her. This is not something we specifically did "to pick on" Elizabeth Warren.

Most people who have any scruples would absolutely never bring an person's child into something. Especially an underage child, but these people are doing it. They are spewing vile lies on the internet about my children! MY CHILDREN!

You know, people think they can whine and moan about Brown saying Warren is "clearly not a woman of color" and they think can play the race card over tomahawk chops, but neither one of those things is nearly as horrifying as going after a person's children the way these people are.

To the Warren people doing this - 

If you think your lies and threats are going to intimidate me into stopping my research and standing up for the truth in Cherokee identity and history, you are sadly mistaken. I haven't lied. I haven't done anything to you. I am not running for office. I have identified myself in full public disclosure to the appropriate degree as one who adds to public discussion. Your candidate, on the other hand, seems to be hiding a lot of things from everyone. If you want people to stop calling her a fake, your time would be better spent in trying to get her to tell the truth than it is in attacking me.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Why I Do This

One of the most common questions asked of me during this Elizabeth Warren fiasco is why I do this. Some think the hoard of wannabes is so big we will never be able to stop it. Others have seen the attacks made against me on Twitter and Facebook and wonder why I would continue when I have to deal such abuse. And some think it just isn’t that important. They want to know what it is that drives me to keep going, even when they think it would sometimes be easier to give up.

The reason I do this is because the memory of our ancestors and the historical Cherokee Nation is important to me. Our ancestors dealt with intruders since the time non-Indians arrived and started living here. Time and time again, they ceded portions of their land until they only retained what is now known as the old Cherokee Nation East – parts of Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and North Carolina. And even then, during the two year period before the deadline, citizens of Georgia went into the Cherokee Nation and dispossessed the Cherokees of their homes and property. After that came the forced removal, the Trail of Tears, where Cherokees lost almost all their personal property, their beloved homeland, and sometimes their family members.

After the removal, our ancestors rebuild their nation in a new, untamed land. And intruders soon followed. The number of intruders, or people illegally squatting on Indian land, exploded during the two decades before statehood. By 1890, there were 128,000 non-Indians living in Indian Territory compared to about 50,000 Indians. By 1907, ninety percent of the population was intruders. Our ancestors were virtually overrun by these intruders who were, for the most part, white. These people saw the Indian Territory as the land of milk and honey. They knew the Indians were getting individual allotments of land and they, once again, saw it as an opportunity to get the land from the Indians.

We are truly a defeated nation who has lost just about everything we had to those who conquered us. But, despite all this loss, we have managed to retain something valuable – our identity. We are Cherokee and we come from strong and resilient people who time and time again overcame obstacles. No matter what they had to endure, they overcame it and carried on. Because of their repeated triumph over tragedy, they managed to hold onto and pass down our birthright – the right to call ourselves Cherokee.

Unfortunately now, people are trying to take that one thing we have left – our identity. This is what Elizabeth Warren has done. She usurped our identity. She took something that did not belong to her and she used it. If nothing else, we know she was counted as a Native American for diversity purposes, so either she or the schools she worked for benefited from her stolen Cherokee identity. She is no different than those people in Georgia who dispossessed our ancestors of their homes or the intruders in Indian Territory who squatted on our land. They did what they wanted without a concern for the Cherokee people and they took or used what was ours for their own personal benefit.

Elizabeth Warren isn’t the only one trying to take our identity. While there are only three federally recognized Cherokee tribes, there are over 200 groups trying to pass themselves off as Cherokee tribes. There are many, many more individuals who pass themselves off as Cherokees and some of these people have undoubtedly used the false claims for benefit like Warren has. 

The authentic Cherokee tribes are made up of descendants of those listed on either the Dawes or Baker Rolls. Those rolls include the names of citizens who stayed with their nations; helped clear and farm their nations' land; helped build their nations' businesses and schools; participated in their nations' governments; and defended their nations in times of war and unrest. Through their loyalty to their nations, those Cherokee citizens paid the price for their descendants to have the right to call themselves Cherokee. No one else has that right.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Warren and Her Direct Attack on Our Sovereignty

I am highly disturbed at how the Democrats are crying racism when it is their candidate, Elizabeth Warren, who has usurped an identity that didn't belong to her and continues to double and triple down on that claim, still, without proof. If they want to stand up for American Indians, it should not be done by yelling racism but instead, by pointing out sovereignty and treaty rights. We are sovereign Indian nations and we have the right to determine who is or is not a member of our nations, not them. By the standards they are using against Scott Brown, his misunderstanding of Indian identity, they are also guilty.

Warren has had ample opportunity to admit she made a mistake. She refuses to do it, which means she has no respect for us as Indian Nations. She sees us as a race of people instead. Now the Democratic political machine is using us, as a race, the generic Indian, to play the race card. What I see is not racism, but instead, race baiting by Warren and her supporters. Because she claimed to be us, by default, she and her supporters are now using us, the Cherokee people, as their reason to claim racism. It isn't racism.

It is an attack on sovereignty by Warren and her supporters because they think they can tell us who is Cherokee, or who should be, based on race. By this philosophy, our nation, the Cherokee Nation, would be booting out the freedmen descendents. Warren and her supporters disrespect Indian Nations as sovereign nations. We are not one group - Indians - but instead individual nations who determines our own citizenship. Warren claims to be Cherokee and her supporters, the media and many others give her the benefit of doubt. That is where they get it wrong and that is where they disrespect us. We say she is not Cherokee, so she isn't. Cherokees decide who is Cherokee. Not the media. Not the Democrats. And not Elizabeth Warren.


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Who Says Fake Cherokees Aren't Dangerous?

The Vinita Republican, Vinita, Indian Territory, June 27, 190_, Vol 1, #19, J.
F. Murphy, Editor.
The Watts Family

The thirty-sixth annual reunion of the Watts family and a Masonic celebration began in Muldrow Tuesday and lasted through Wednesday. For years the Watts family were claimants to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation and a legal fight between them and the Cherokee was waged for years, until finally the Dawes Commission appeared upon the scene and settled the matter, and all the Watts family were rejected. 

They were intruders upon the lands of the Cherokee and made permanent and valuable improvements with out any legal right. They were finally divested of all the Indian land they held and they now reside in the Indian Territory as other United States citizens, but do not own land as Indians. They at one time had charge of more than $1,000,000 worth of Indian lands. (emphasis added) The head of the family is W. J. Watts, who was known to the Cherokee as the "King of the Intruders", and he has cost the Cherokee Nation more than any other living man. Many years ago these reunions were held for mutual advice, but since they have been divested of landed rights these meetings are kept up for the social features.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Sic 'em Chief Baker!

You said, "The use of stereotypical 'war whoop chants' and 'tomahawk chops" are offensive and downright racist," so go get us an apology from them now too. Well, unless they are all Democrats. I forgot. It's only racist and insulting when a Republican does it.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Why Giago Is Wrong: Parsing the Nuances of Ethnic Fraud by Cole DeLaune

          Last Tuesday, nominally progressive online news vehicle The Huffington Post published a disappointing and misinformed article by Tim Giago, president of the South Dakota Unity Foundation as well as the founder and publisher emeritus of Indian Country Today. Elegantly outlining the many problematic practicalities related to false claims of indigenous heritage, Giago titularly asserts, "Claiming Indian heritage does not make it so," and subsequently leverages his analysis to ascribe moral differentiation to the two most notable Native impostors of the last decade: UC Boulder academic Ward Churchill and Massachusetts political aspirant Elizabeth Warren. 

Considering the history of the website for which he is writing, it is perhaps almost inevitable that bewildering pivots of logic and significant factual errors would creep into the manifesto. After all, Arianna Huffington's media powerhouse has regularly promulgated the fiction that Elizabeth Warren's 1/32 blood quantum is matter of incontrovertible truth. Although parroted by Mr. Giago, this fabrication is no closer to substantiation than it was four months ago. Similarly, the contention that Harvard Law's favorite staffer never gleaned advantage from her spontaneous mid-life rediscovery of a passion for family rumor continues to strain credulity and deflect attention from the more alarming dimensions of the controversy. 

However insidiously self-serving Mr. Churchill's writings appear in the context of his extended pantomime, it is undeniable that he has devoted his career and personal life to amassing an encyclopedic knowledge regarding the history and evolution of the indigenous community in the United States. In addition to penning or contributing to fourteen books on related subjects, he has additionally participated as an activist in the American Indian Movement of Colorado for over a quarter of a century. By contrast, Professor Warren has responded on the campaign trail to overtures from Natives with combative guardedness, if not transparent antagonism. 

Of course, unlike her counterpart, Cambridge's most famous would-be Delaware-Cherokee has managed to suppress any definitively damning paperwork that affirms she acquired tenure in a "special opportunity position." But as I have previously asserted, the chance to racially self-identify in explicitly professional circumstances is an instrument of affirmative action aspirations. Institutions and employers prompt questions of ethnicity in the idealistic spirit of accounting for the unpalatable realities of an unbalanced societal playing field and assembling the most intellectually nourishing environment possible. The sudden decision of an established late-thirtysomething legal scholar to advertise unconfirmed ancestry completely void of tribal association reflects a peculiar expression of pride when contrasted against her prior lifelong practice of self-determination as a Caucasian and her current disdain for Indian sentiments that fail to bolster her play for power. 

It is perplexing, to say the least, that Mr. Giago excoriates a hyperbolically tragicomic pretender with truncated influence like Churchill while exonerating a prominent aspirant to legislative office whose dishonorable contempt for Native Americans persists to this day. For someone who punctuates the distinction between blood and legacy with a metaphorical exclamation point, he demonstrates little appreciation for the extent to which conduct illuminates functional cultural character. More disquietingly, the inaccuracies he has disseminated will reverberate in the public discourse for the indeterminate future; one fallacy breeds another. To borrow the formula invoked by the author: irresponsibly perpetuating misconceptions do not make them sound, and myths cannot be so easily transfigured into reality.

Educated at Dartmouth College and Columbia University, Cole DeLaune is a native of Oklahoma and Tennessee. He is a member of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

David Tadpole Stood for His Beliefs, I Do Too.

~~Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone.~~

During the US Civil War, my great great great grandpa, David Tadpole, signed up to protect the Cherokee chief, John Ross. Later, when Chief Ross decided to side with the Confederacy, my ggg grandpa went back home, refusing to fight against the treaty the Cherokee Nation had with the United States. Despite his loyalty to the chief, his convictions led him to take a different side than his chief.  He later enlisted with the Indian Home Guard, Union, when given the opportunity.

Today, following in the footsteps of my great great great grandpa, David Tadpole, I, too, must do what I feel is right and take a different side than my chief, Bill John Baker. I do not support or agree with the statement he released today. My opinion is that he should have requested apologies from both campaigns, Warren's and Brown's, for their offensive behaviors or he should have not requested an apology at all. 

Because Chief Baker was a Democratic National Delegate this year, I believe his statement was politically motivated and meant to give the Democratic candidate, Elizabeth Warren, a boost.  But what Elizabeth Warren has done is much worse, in my humble opinion, than any tomahawk chop Brown's people have done. By taking a Cherokee identity she has no right to, she has committed an act of colonization. She has usurped Indigenous identity, just as her ancestors stole the land and resources. It's a hostile act of genocide and it is not okay. But Baker is willing to overlook that. 

He said, "I will not be silent when individuals mock and insult our people and our great nation." I think what he meant was he will not be silent when Republican individuals mock and insult our people and our great nation. At least that is what his actions say. 

I know there will be some people who say Bill John Baker is the chief and I am just a citizen, so my opinion doesn't matter. Before they do, they need to remember one thing. My ggg grandpa was just a citizen too, but in the end, we can see it was he, and other Cherokee citizens who served with him, who had the best judgement. 

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Elizabeth Warren's Act of Colonization

As I watch the Democrats and Republicans battle it out over the Senate race in Massachusetts, I see two groups that most likely don't really give a flying fig about Native Americans or the Cherokee people. They just use us as weapons in their battle for the US Senate.

Everyone seems to have forgotten who started all this - Elizabeth Warren. She falsely claimed to be Cherokee. Call it what you will, but somehow, somewhere, sometime, she did or said something that led the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard Law School to list her as a minority. She says she didn't use the claims to get a job so she thinks it is okay. It isn't. She has assumed an identity and a history as well as tragedies and triumphs that don't belong to her.

What Elizabeth Warren has done is an act of colonization. She has usurped Indigenous identity, just as her ancestors stole the land and resources. It's a hostile act of genocide and it is not okay.


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.





*Thank you to my friend, Barbara Low for helping me find the words I needed to write this post. Her words are in bold.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Another Letter to Elizabeth Warren

Ms. Warren,

Let me make one thing clear. Your Native American issue has not been put to rest. You say your "ancestry" played no roll in your hiring. That is not the only issue. You were listed as a minority in diversity reports. That is an issue. You admit you made the schools aware of your "heritage." They counted you as a minority in their reports to the federal government when the criteria to list you as such had a two part requirement - you had to have both the ancestry and maintain tribal ties. Something you did or said led the two schools in question to believe you met those requirements despite the fact you didn't. This is a reason to question your character.

You continue to skate around the issue by repeating the same story you heard growing up. You say you didn't ask for documentation because you were a child. Excuse me, but you were not a child when you started "checking the box"; listing yourself in law directories as a minority; or were counted as a Native American for diversity reports. You were instead, an adult, 37 years old, and a lawyer, when you professionally "became" Native American.  To make matters worse, your mother was still alive. Maybe children don't ask for documentation, but adult lawyers should. Your explanation on why you didn't get documentation discredits the intelligence of the American public. Strike two, another reason to question your character.

As of today, you still refuse to release your personnel records from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard Law School.  If there is nothing to hide, why? You could release them and end this all IF you did nothing wrong. To refuse to do so does clearly speak volumes, like Senator Brown said in the debate. Strike three, Ms. Warren. This is yet another reason to question your character. 

Ms. Warren, when it comes to defending your character, you just struck out. No one really cares about your family or the stories you were told growing up, but we do care about your integrity. The "Cherokee flap" is important because it shows what you have done when you thought no one was watching. It is important because it shows what you have done when you thought you wouldn't get caught. And it is important because it reveals you still think you can get away with it now that you have been caught.

This issue is not over and it won't be over until you explain exactly how you came to be listed as a Native American in diversity reports. This is a matter of ethics, integrity and truthfulness. Release your personnel records, including your self identification form, and put this topic to rest. The Cherokee people, the people of Massachusetts and the people of the United States deserve to know the truth.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Elizabeth Warren's Mother Lied

When reading the Boston Globe article, this section jumped out at me:

"One day Warren, then about 7, asked her mother about her own wedding dress, and her mother said she had not had one. When Warren pressed for details, “she said no one came to her wedding at all."

That isn't true. Alyne Geren, a friend of Pauline's from school, possibly her best friend, attended the wedding. We know because she was a witness to the marriage.

Remember I explained in the post, "When is an elopement not an elopement":

"Who was this Alyne Geren who witnessed the marriage? Apparently she was a friend of Pauline Reed, Ms. Warren’s mother. According to the Ada Evening News; April 3, 1929; Alyne attended a debate where Pauline competed. Donald Herring, father of Ms. Warren, attended the same debate. Pauline’s sister, Maxine Masterson, lived in Ada, and there were often snippets in the society column about her, her family, and her visitors. Every high school student that attended the debate was not mentioned but Pauline, Donald and Alyne were. Since we already know Pauline and Donald later married and that Alyne was their witness, it is not a stretch to assume these three were good friends while in high school and that both Donald and Alyne attended the debate to watch Pauline."

In that previous post, I wrote about why I thought there was no elopement, but instead, just a Depression Era wedding. I still think that. I think Pauline made up a story to explain the reasons she didn't have a formal wedding and a fancy dress.

One thing is clear. Pauline lied when she said no one came to her wedding at all. And we all know, once someone is found to be a liar, then everything else they say about the same topic is suspect as well. Everything Warren has credited her mother with saying about their purported Cherokee ancestry has been suspect to me from the start. Now it should be suspect to you as well. We know Pauline apparently lied about one thing. What is to say she didn't lie about it all?

How do you sort through family lore to get to the truth? By doing just what I did here. Compare the story to the documents and evidence and see if it matches. This is only one example with this story. We will explore other examples later.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.






Clips from the society column about the debate.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Stop Trying to Rewrite Our History

*Part 5 in response to the Boston Globe article from September 15, 2012. 

Too many people, like those used for "testimony" that Elizabeth Warren might have Indian blood, believe the myths floating around on the internet. They disregard the truth about Cherokee history, assuming there were no records or that we don't know our own history. We know our history and we had lots of records. And believe it or not, we Cherokees were intelligent and educated (actually at a higher percentage than the dominant white society) and we participated in the making of our records and rolls. Remember? We had a written language. We took a case to the Supreme Court and won. Our ancestors were not push overs and they insisted on having as much involvement as possible in determining who was or was not allowed on the rolls of our nation. 

The people quoted in the article by the Boston Globe were not exactly correct in the stories they told or the reasons they gave for why their families were not found on the Dawes Roll. 

That was not the only roll of the Cherokee people. If their families were truly Cherokee, then they would find their family on the older rolls. Below are two previous posts on this topic. I feel they are important because people need to know the truth and they need to stop attempting to rewrite our history just so they can make their non-Indian family fit in it.

The Dawes Roll is Not the Only Proof

Often times, people will claim they are Cherokee, but they can never prove it because their ancestors are not on the Dawes Roll. They claim their ancestors hid from the Dawes Commission and refused to be enrolled. Or, they claim their family escaped the Trail of Tears and hid out or passed as white. To some, these stories may seem logical or realistic, but to those knowledgeable in Cherokee history, those stories seem absurd. There is so much documentation on the Cherokee people throughout history, it would be nearly impossible for one not to have been recorded as Cherokee on some document or roll. Recently, my friend, David Cornsilk, responded on a message board to a person (CR) who seems to think the Dawes Roll is the only document containing any information about Cherokee ancestry and also believes (his words, not mine) "those who ... ... followed the Dawes commission around like a dog hoping to get some land have descendants who get to claim to be Cherokee."

To this, David responded with, "There were many full bloods, some of my ancestors included, who refused to enroll on the Dawes Roll. They followed Redbird Smith's orders and avoided enrollment; at least until their neighbors testified for them. I think the point that CR is trying to make, which is only partially correct, is that some Cherokees did not get on the Dawes Roll. This we know is factual. However, just because something happened in the past does not mean it happened to his ancestors.

There are many tragedies and triumphs of the Cherokee people. The names of our ancestors do not just appear on the Dawes Roll. They appear on the 1896, 1894, 1890, 1880, 1876, 1851 (3 rolls in that year alone), 1835 and 1817 rolls. There are a number of other documents created inbetween that list the names of Cherokees living at those times. There are documents from the early 1800s including missionary records that mention the names of Cherokees whose descendants are among those enrolled in subsequent years. My ancestors are nobody special. Just your average Cherokees. Yet their names appear on EVERY roll and in every document. My blood kin through collateral lineages are listed throughout the Cherokee records. That is how it is for real Cherokees.

On the other hand, the fakes, not naming any names, find absolutely no ancestors or kin of any kind among our people no matter what record we look at or how far back in time we go. The bottom line here is proof. And whether CR or anyone else dislikes the Dawes Roll because their ancestors names do not appear there is not important. That Roll, despite whatever flaws it may have is OUR history, our record, the names of OUR ancestors appear there. And the same can be said for every Cherokee record that predates it. Those records belong to us because the Cherokee tribe of Indians belongs to us and none other.

Fakes and wannabes claim their ancestors were hiding from the Dawes Commission, then I ask where are the names of your ancestors in any record that would have alerted the Dawes Commission to search for them? They claim their ancestors remained east of the Mississippi after the Trail of Tears. Yet my ancestor Collins McDonald, his in-laws (who were Cherokees), his Cherokee wife and his Cherokee children actually did remain in Georgia. They appear in numerous records, not passing themselves as whites, although they could have. They were living as Cherokees and their names appear in the 1848 and 1851 Rolls of Eastern Cherokees, just the same as all the other Cherokees who remained. Yet the fakers and wannabes have no ancestors on those rolls. Why? Because their ancestors were not Cherokees!

Before the Trail of Tears a roll was made that lists 16,000 Cherokees who were destined to be removed. Again, my ancestors names are there, the fakers who claim their ancestors jumped off the Trail of Tears are nowhere to be found. In the early 1800s missionaries came among our people to educate our ancestors and convert them to Christianity. They made copious notes in journals of the children they taught and the families they met. My ancestors are mentioned throughout those journals. My ancestors are listed as students in the mission schools in Georgia in 1820. Are the fakers and wannabes listed? No, their ancestors cannot be found there.

Logic does not reign supreme in the mind of the wannabe. They twist our history and torture the names of our ancestors to fit their own family scenarios. They invent parents for Cherokees long since dead who cannot protest this bastardization of their family names. The fakes call out names such as Moytoy the first through the fifth, Great Eagle, Tamedoe, Cornblossom and other blasphemous corruptions of our ancestral heritage to make themselves appear to be Cherokees, and all of this without so much as a shred of evidence to connect themselves to a Cherokee, let alone a Cherokee to the fabricated names they force upon us.

If any part of our heritage belongs to the fakers and wannabes it is the heritage of theft that has left the Cherokee Indian landless and poverty stricken. Ethnic Identity Theft is the ultimate form of genocide. The white people and their descendants who invaded and colonized our homeland in the Southeast are no longer happy with just owning the land we once called home. Now they must rise up and steal our name."

So my fellow genealogists, the next time you hear someone give a reason as to why they cannot prove they are Cherokee, think about the information David shared with us. If a person cannot find one iota of evidence to support their family story, then it is highly unlikely they have any Cherokee ancestry at all. It is just that plain and simple.

Original post: http://www.pollysgranddaughter.com/2009/12/dawes-roll-is-not-only-proof.html#ixzz26qCVwKsR

and

A Cherokee can't be found because a Cherokee isn't there

Yesterday, I received an email from Farah Stockman, of the Boston Globe, thanking me for my efforts to document the ancestry of Elizabeth Warren. Through her email, I could tell she had already formed an opinion and what I said didn't matter, so I wondered why she even bothered to contact me with questions. But I answered her email truthfully and factually. And, just as I suspected, she didn't consider one thing I told her.

Her article came out and she asserted many things that are commonly told as truth in the non-Cherokee world, but when studied, are shown to only be based in lore. (Are we starting to see a pattern here? Lots of lore, huh?) Did Cherokees refuse to enroll? Yes. Were they enrolled anyway? Yes. Does Farah bother to tell her readers this? No. Does she bother to tell her readers that those who opposed allotment were the Nighthawks, often full bloods, always traditional? No. Does she tell her readers that some Cherokees who tried to avoid allotment were arrested and forced to enroll? No. What she does is apparently try to lead her readers into believing there were people everywhere who refused to enroll so today their descendants are cut out of being able to claim their ancestry. This is not true.There are Cherokee descendants who are not eligible to register with any of the three federally recognized tribes. Some because their blood quantum is too low to meet the minimum required amount and others because they don't have an ancestor on the Dawes Roll but they still have ancestors found on other historical Cherokee rolls. We know this. No one disputes this. But Elizabeth Warren is not one of these people.

Though Farah writes, "Ironclad claims of Native American ancestry are often based on the so-called Dawes Rolls", this is not true. The "Dawes Roll" is the final roll of citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes; the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw and Seminole. Most Indian Nations do not use the Dawes Roll as their basis for enrollment or registration. I know it might be hard for some people to believe, but there are a lot of other Indian Nations or tribes in the United States. Everyone is not Cherokee. And Farah's statement isn't even true for Cherokee ancestry because the Eastern Band uses the Baker Roll as their base for enrollment. But, Farah doesn't tell her readers that. She makes it seem that because Warren's ancestors were not on this roll, one roll, the Dawes Roll, they might have lost their chance to ever prove their purported Cherokee ancestry.

Why didn't Farah point out the many other rolls of the Cherokee people like the Emigration Roll, Henderson Roll, the Drennen Roll, the Old Settler Roll (two of them), the Guion Miller Roll, the Chapman Roll, the Siler Roll, the Lipe Roll, the censuses of 1869, 1880, 1890 and 1896? Or the muster rolls of Cherokee soldiers from the War of 1812 and the Civil War? Or the Moravian and the Brainerd Mission records? Or the muster rolls from the removal? Or the ration lists from before and after the removal? Or the claims the Cherokees filed against the US in the 1840s? Why didn't she point out Elizabeth Warren's ancestors are found on none of those rolls or in any of these records either?

You would think Farah would ask someone who actually knows about Cherokee genealogy and records if she really wanted to get to the bottom of this controversy, wouldn't you?  Well she didn't. There are numerous people she could have talked to like Jack Baker, Gene Norris, or Jeff Bishop if she wanted to learn about Cherokee history and genealogy. Instead, she found someone to quote who  wrote a book about Wetumka, the town where Warren grew up. While she adds his statements as factual, she never offers any information about his experience in the world of genealogy or Cherokee history. She tells us he says, "It is very difficult to determine who is and who isn’t an Indian," but she doesn't tell us that just because something may be difficult for him doesn't mean it is difficult for everyone.  And, this man Farah bases so much of her argument on? A man who doesn't even know the name of his great grandmother. Now tell me, how much genealogy has this man done?

After reading Farah's article for the Boston Globe, all I could do was shake my head and think, "Now everyone thinks they are an expert on Cherokee history and genealogy." It's almost laughable to watch this hot mess of Cherokee ancestry desperation. First, there was a frantic search to find a Cherokee and when that turned up nothing, now there is a carpet bombing of excuses why a Cherokee can't be found.  Get a grip people! How hard is it to admit a Cherokee can't be found because there isn't one there? Good grief!

Original post: http://www.pollysgranddaughter.com/2012/06/cherokee-cant-be-found-because-cherokee.html#ixzz26qD4Ojt8

 

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thank you for reading.


**A very special thank you to David Cornsilk for allowing me to use his writing.
 

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Pinch Hitters in the Bottom of the Ninth Inning

*Part 4 in response to the Boston Globe article from September 15, 2012.

Has anyone wondered why now, after all this time has passed, Elizabeth Warren's brothers finally decided to publicly speak in support of her claims? I did and I think they are nothing more than pinch hitters called in at the bottom of the ninth inning when everyone fears Elizabeth Warren will strike out.  Basically, she needed her big brothers to come in and save the game because she couldn't do it herself.

In my opinion, they struck out anyway. From the Boston Globe article,

"David Herring of Norman, Okla., one of Warren’s three brothers, said in an interview that even when he was a child his relatives were reluctant to talk about the family’s Native American heritage because “it was not popular in my family.” Only when he begged his grandparents, said Herring, did they finally explain to him: “Your grandfather is part Delaware, a little bitty bit, way back, and your grandmother is part Cherokee. It was not the most popular thing to do in Oklahoma. [Indians] were degraded, looked down on.” "

Is he trying to tell us he was talking to his grandparents and one of them said, "Your grandfather....and your grandmother..."? If a grandparent was telling the story, wouldn't they say, "Your grandfather...and I..." or "Your grandmother...and I..."?

And what about "pappaw"? Why did he all of a sudden become "grandfather"?

And if this was such an important part of their lives and how they lived, why does he say he had to beg for them to tell him about it? Elizabeth Warren says it was an important part of their lives, yet her brother says the family was reluctant to talk about it? I wish they would make up which story they want to tell and stick with it because this ever evolving one is starting to get on my nerves!

Also from the Boston Globe:

"Warren’s brother David, eight years her senior, calls the public controversy over the subject “a bunch of baloney.” He remembers relatives cautioning him when he played cowboys and Indians as a child. “My aunts said, ‘Be careful shooting the Indians because some of them are your relatives.’ ” But most shied away from the subject of the family’s heritage, Herring added, because “it wasn’t something you were proud of.” "

Did you notice they did not tell him he was Indian, but instead, that some of his relatives were Indian? Maybe they were referring to the Matneys. Remember? Elizabeth Warren's great grandma's second cousin married an Indian. It wouldn't make them Indians, but it would make some of their relatives, the children of David Matney, Indians.

And how much more insulting can this Herring/Reed/Warren family be when it comes to real Indians?  First they claim to be us. Then one from the family, Elizabeth Warren, uses that claim to benefit her career. Then she refuses to speak with any American Indian that requests a meeting and refuses interviews with Native journalists. Now they say being an Indian isn't something "you" were proud of. Uh, sorry, jackass, but in my family, it was something we were and are proud of. Never have we denied who we were.

And as for the group statement made by all three of Warren's brothers, pfftttt!

“The people attacking Betsy and our family don’t know much about either. We grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage. They’ve passed away now, but they’d be angry if they were around today listening to all this.”

Sure you grew up listening to your relatives talking about your family's Cherokee and Delaware heritage. Sure you did! After all, like David said earlier, they were reluctant to talk about it!  Ha ha ha. I think it would have been wiser if her brothers would have continued to keep their mouths shut.

Sorry Betsy, but this was the bottom of the ninth, with one out, and you called in your pinch hitters. They struck out. Now it is two down and one to go before game over. Who are you going to send in to bat for you now? You are almost out of options. If you don't choose carefully, you are going to lose this game.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

The Problem with William J. Crawford

**September 15, 2012, a story came out in the Boston Globe that had a picture of Harry Reed and a caption that said, "Harry Reed was part Indian, say descendants." The article that followed was very long, full of misconceptions about Cherokee history and based on nothing but family lore. The article is so long, I will write a series of posts dealing with one topic at a time so my readers don't get lost in the information.**
 

I hate it when I have to publicly point out a person's mistakes in genealogy, but in this case, because of the extreme damage it has done to genealogy and by encouraging the myth of Cherokee genealogy without documentation in a very public forum, the media, I feel this is too important to allow to go unmentioned.

Do you want to see how family myths are born and grow to something that is difficult to beat down? Then pay attention. This is one such example.

This entire fiasco concerning Elizabeth Warren's false genealogy has grown to mythological proportions in the media. Over and over and over, various media outlets have stated that Warren's great great great grandma, "OC Sarah Smith" was supposed to be full blood Cherokee. This information was supposed to have come from a marriage license of "OC Sarah Smith's" son, William J. Crawford. 

click to enlarge

Even though it has been shown the marriage license did not say "OC Sarah Smith" was Cherokee, and that the information from the Lynda Smith family tree on Rootsweb.com was incorrect, no one has bothered to stop and consider, if one thing was wrong, then maybe a lot is wrong with that tree.

There was no OC Sarah Smith. Please see The Warren/Boraker Families - Are They Really Related? for more on this. There is no documentation to show this woman, OC Smith, was actually Warren's ancestor either. Everyone seems to assume she is because one person said she was. But, the conclusions that person came to are flawed.

From Lynda Smith's family tree posted on Rootweb.com (my comments in blue),

• This William Crawford is a mystery. (He isn't to me.)
  
• It appears that the William who married Oma C. Nipper in Roane Co., TN was not the same William Crawford who was the son of Jonathan H. Crawford and Neoma or Oma Smith. (According to his Civil War pension application, he WAS the the same man. He married Naomi C. Nipper in Roane County, Tennesse on 18 October 1857.)
  
• John or Jonathan H. Crawford was a common name. (There were several men in Tennessee at living at the same time who used variations of the names, John H. Crawford, Jonathon Crawford, John Crawford, etc...)
  
• Several Crawford researchers have stated that the William who married Oma C. Nipper in 1857 in Roane Co. TN is the same man who married Mary E. Long in Oklahoma in 1894. (And those researchers would be correct.)
  
• The William who married Oma Nipper lived with his father John H. Crawford in Roane Co. (This might be his father.)
• John is listed on the 1850 Roane Co census: John H. Crofford, 47, b. Va; Rebecca, 52, b. N.C.; Lucinda, 18; WILLIAM, 17; Rebecca J., 15; John W., 14 and Edmund H., 12 (John H. Crawford married Rebecca Woody 15 September, 1829 in Roane Co.) (This might be the family William came from. But he listed his mother as OC Smith on his marriage license. Is the Rebecca listed on the census his mother, stepmother, or is this an entirely different family? I don't know.)
  
• This Roane Co. John Crawford is not the same man who married Neoma Smith (No, he isn't.One is always found in Roane County, married to Rebecca, using the name John H. Crawford. The other is found in Bledsoe and Jackson Counties, married to Neoma, and using the name Jonathon Crawford. No middle initial ever listed/found.)
• The statement was made on the marriage application that his mother was O.C. Sarah Smith and his father Jonathan H. Crawford. (Incorrect. William J. Crawford, of the marriage license controversy, listed his parents as JH Crawford and OC Smith. No John H. No Jonathon. Just JH. No OC Sarah. No Sarah. No Neoma. Just OC.)
  
• It is not known whether William was married before he married Mary Long. He would have been over 50 at the time of this marriage. (As stated above, it is known. He was first married to Namoi C. Nipper according to his Civil War pension application.)
• William J Crawford stated on his marriage license application when he married Mary E. Long that his father was Jonathon H. Crawford and his mother was O.C. Sarah Smith. (No, he did not state that! No matter how many times this is repeated, it won't make it true. He did not state what is being claimed here, repeatedly.)
  
• He also said that his mother was Cherokee Indian. (See for yourself. Look at the marriage license and see if there is anything that says "OC Smith" was Cherokee Indian. If you are blind and can't see, I will tell you -- no, it doesn't say that anywhere on the license.) 
• 1860 census of Roane Co., TN: Wm Crawford, 25; Oma C., 25; James J.,7/12; Sarah Nipper, 40; Richard Nipper, 17. (All b. TN) (This is the family which has been confused with that of William probable son of Jonathan and Neoma.) (Yet this is the man who had the marriage license that everyone is trying to use for proof that Elizabeth Warren's ancestors might have been Cherokee! Not only can this man not be linked to Lynda Smith's family, he can't be linked to Warren's either.)

Ah......the birth of a genealogical myth. See how it happens? One person makes a mistake and people come along behind them and copy the mistake and because it gets repeated over and over and over, people assume it is true, never bothering to check the documents for themselves. 

  

In the last bullet point, Lynda Smith says this William who was married to Oma C. Nipper has been confused with a probable son of Jonathon and Naoma Crawford. She came to the conclusion that the William who married Mary Long was the son of Jonathon and Naoma Crawford and the William who married Oma Nipper was the son of John H. and Rebecca Crawford. The problem is, the William J. Crawford who married Naomi C. Nipper is the same one who married Mary Long in Logan County, Oklahoma. Lynda Smith has assumed there were two men when there was only one man. And that one man, William J. Crawford, cannot conclusively be linked to the family of Lynda Smith/Robert C. Boraker or to that of Elizabeth Warren through documentation. But a legend has now been born.

Now everyone believes that Preston Crawford, Elizabeth Warren's ancestor, had a brother named William J. Crawford and that their parents were named Jonathon H. Crawford and OS Sarah Naoma Smith. Nowhere are documents found at this point in time to show this is true.

What does Lynda Smith have to say about publishing these errors and causing such a fiasco? What does she say after she knows the Cherokee reference is not there and after she has been notified of other errors in her tree as well?

"I'm sorry that I posted something that wasn't correct (the Cherokee reference on the marriage record) but I'm not sorry about the rest of it being posted because it can be a starting point for others to do research."

No, Lynda, it was not just a starting point for others. Instead, it started a firestorm of controversy and helped perpetuate myths. As a genealogist, I would think one would want to be more careful about making a lot of assumptions and posting them on the internet, not making it clear that they are only assumptions and not set in stone fact. Now, unfortunately, not only do some people still believe Warren has Cherokee ancestry, others believe Preston Crawford was, without a doubt, the son of Jonathon and Neoma Crawford.

So what can we learn from this? If you are a genealogist, do your own work and don't copy from anyone. Insist on viewing the primary or secondary documents yourself. If you are a journalist, be careful who you use a a source. Don't assume they are correct, especially when Cherokee ancestry is an issue. If you want to get to the bottom of an issue in Cherokee genealogy, ask someone experienced in Cherokee genealogy. Don't assume anyone with a subscription to ancestry.com knows what they are doing.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

The Warren/Boraker Families - Are They Really Related?

**September 15, 2012, a story came out in the Boston Globe that had a picture of Harry Reed and a caption that said, "Harry Reed was part Indian, say descendants." The article that followed was very long, full of misconceptions about Cherokee history and based on nothing but family lore. The article is so long, I will write a series of posts dealing with one topic at a time so my readers don't get lost in the information.**

From the Boston Globe:

"Robert C. Boraker, a retired journalist and amateur genealogist who said he is Warren’s fourth cousin — their great-great-grandfathers were brothers — said his father often told him that his grandmother, a Crawford, was one-eighth Indian. “It was Cherokee blood,” said Boraker, who lives in St. Albans, England, and publishes a family newsletter that includes the Crawford line. “There was no documentation, but it was what we knew, what we were told.” "

What they fail to mention is this Boraker is the Boraker who was responsible for the newsletter that put out false information about "the marriage license" and confused people into believing Elizabeth Warren's direct line ancestors had a relative that listed his mother as Cherokee on that marriage license.

This information was shown to be false and the Boston Globe had to issue a retraction on their story about this. Yet, once again, the Globe uses information from this source to try to show Elizabeth Warren might be Cherokee. You would think they might be more cautious the second time around. I guess not.

The connections between the Boraker family and Warren's family cannot be shown through documentation. There is NO known documentation to show who the parents of Warren's great great grandfather, Preston Crawford, were. NONE. The media has gone wild with the stories of "OC Sarah Smith" and repeatedly claimed this is Warren's third great grandmother.Where does this information come from? Apparently, once again, the Boraker family newsletter and its source, Lynda Smith.

Let's be VERY clear about something. The team and I have NEVER found any documentation on a woman named "OC Sarah Smith."

We can show that a man named William J. Crawford listed his mother as "OC Smith."

familysearch.org

We can show that a man named Jonathon Crawford from Bledsoe Co, Tennessee was married to a woman named Neona Smith.

Bounty Land Warrant Application - click to enlarge

We can show that a man named John H. Crawford from Roane County, Tennessee was married to a woman named Rebecca.

ancestry.com - click to enlarge

Heck, we can even show there was purportedly a man named John H. Crawford from Bledsoe County, Tennessee married to a woman named Mary Polly.

These men all lived at the same time in Tennessee and were relatively close to the same age. We never find any of them married to a woman named Sarah.

If there is no documentation of a woman named "OC Sarah Smith", where did the now "commonly accepted as true" legend come from? According to Lynda Smith, who stated in an email,

"The Crawford descendents at the 1951 meeting have her name as Sarah due to the marriage record of William J. Crawford who said that his mother's maiden name was O. C. Sarah Smith."

and

"In any event there's much speculation due to the lack of records."

We all know the marriage license does not say "OC Sarah Smith." And Lynda Smith admits there is lots of speculation. But the media has grabbed this name and run with it.

In the same email, Lynda Smith stated,

"There are very few documents that survived the courthouse fire in Bledsoe Co. Tn. So no there isn't a document that would link Preston to Jonathan and Neoma/Sarah."

and

"Those that need a document are not likely to find it."

Was there a fire that destroyed records in Bledsoe County, Tennessee? Yes. And Lynda Smith is right. It is unlikely a document will be found to link Elizabeth Warren's ancestor, Preston Crawford, to the Jonathon and Naoma Smith so many now claim are his parents. The document they want to base so much of this speculation on is a marriage license of William J. Crawford, who may or may not actually connect to either family. It seems he may actually be from a different Crawford family who lived in Roane County, Tennessee. (More on this later.)

If no document is likely to be found link Preston Crawford to his parents, whoever they were, then how can Robert C. Boraker claim to be Elizabeth Warren's fourth cousin since he claims to descend from the parents of Preston Crawford? He can't, at least not with any degree of genealogical certainty. Anything he said about HIS family lore or legend, as mythological as I think that is as well, has no bearing on the ancestry or genealogy of Elizabeth Warren. It is just another example of the smoke and mirrors trick the media is using to confuse the public about Elizabeth Warren and her claim of being Cherokee.

Next - The William J. Crawford Confusion


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Elizabeth Warren - Genealogy Vs. Mythology

**September 15, 2012, a story came out in the Boston Globe that had a picture of Harry Reed and a caption that said, "Harry Reed was part Indian, say descendants." The article that followed was very long, full of misconceptions about Cherokee history and based on nothing but family lore. The article is so long, I will write a series of posts dealing with one topic at a time so my readers don't get lost in the information.**

In the article by the Globe, Ina Mapes says her grandmother, Laura Crawford, said her grandfather, Everett Reed, "had one-quarter tribal blood." Everett was the brother of Elizabeth Warren's grandfather, Harry Reed. Later in the article, Warren's brother says Harry Reed was "part Delaware, a little bitty bit, way back." Everett and Harry had the same parents, Joseph H. Reed and Charity Gorman. So how could one be a quarter Indian blood and the other be a little bitty bit?

If they were truly Indian, whatever parent that blood came through would most likely be identified as an Indian. The grandparent definitely would have. No matter what people like to claim today, full bloods and half bloods did not pass for white. It was not how one identified themselves, but how the community they lived in viewed them.

Indians did not exist in a vacuum. The blood would come through a continuous line of Indians, not just one. And at some time, those Indians that blood came through would have to be found living among their people. They would not be found in genealogical records listed as white going back to at least 1760, as the Reeds are. You can find their genealogy by going to Elizabeth Warren, who do you think you are? and Elizabeth Warren, Who Do You Think You Are - Part 2. Notice in Part 2, the aunt of Harry and Everett Reed writes a letter to her son, cousin to Harry and Everett, telling him his pa is afraid he will be exposed to the Indians. 

Because Ina Mapes and Warren share two lines of ancestry, it is also important to mention the differences the two families claim about the Crawford family. While Elizabeth Warren and her brothers say they were told Hannie Crawford was Cherokee, Ina Mapes indicates her grandma, Laura Crawford, sister to Hannie, was not Indian. 

Born and raised in Arizona, Ina Mapes visited her grandmother and other Reed relatives in Okmulgee, Okla., every summer. Her grandmother, by then widowed, often talked about her son’s Indian blood, which she said he inherited from his father, Everett Reed.

Hannie and Laura had the same parents, John H. Crawford and Plinia Bowen. You can find the Crawford genealogy by going to Elizabeth Warren's Ancestry - Part 1, Elizabeth Warren's Ancestry - Part 2 and Elizabeth Warren's Ancestry - Part 3. Notice in Part 3, the aunt, America Crawford, of Hannie and Laura is clearly stated to be white by both her husband and her daughter.

In both lines, we have several stories to consider. Some claim Delaware Indian blood. Some claim Cherokee Indian blood. Both families are documented as white in all historical documents. Are we supposed to believe that there huge conspiracies in both families to cover up Indian blood and record themselves as white for as long as records have been kept in the United States? Or is it more likely someone along the way either got confused or made up stories about each of the families and now some descendants accept the stories as true?

Though the Globe says, "Both the Reeds and the Crawfords are identified as “white” on federal Census forms in the early 20th century that rely upon self-identification." That isn't telling the whole story. Enumerators did not have to accept answers they felt were untruthful. See the post titled, Indians on the US Census, for more information. Both the Reeds and Crawfords are ALWAYS found on federal census forms as white, going back as far as they can be traced on the federal census. They are white in EVERY other record they are found on as well. They are also found in NO Cherokee records, ever. Because the Delaware were adopted by the Cherokee Nation, from that time forward, they should be found in the Cherokee historical records if they were truly Cherokee or Delaware. They are not. 

What's that old saying? Genealogy without documentation is mythology.  I have shared the genealogy of this family. The Boston Globe has shared the mythology of the family. Both of us are reporting. You decide which story to believe.

Next, The Crawford/Boraker families - Are they really related?

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet