When the Past Meets the Present - Part 5

Changing stories and Ancestor Stealing

In the 1896 claim that was appealed to the US courts, in the case known as RM Walker v the Cherokee Nation, the maternal ancestors of Chief Bill John Baker claimed descent from a Cherokee citizen named John Rogers. They were very specific about which John Rogers they claimed.  He was white and well documented. They don't descend through him. 

By the time of the Eastern Cherokee applications, approximately 11 years later, Chief Baker's maternal ancestors were still very specific about which Cherokee John Rogers they claimed, but this time, it was a different John Rogers. He was a chief and also well documented. They don't descend through him either, but ironically, Cara Cowan Watts, Cherokee Nation council woman, does. (Yes, you read that correctly. Chief Baker's  maternal ancestors falsely claimed to descend through Cara Cowan Watts' ancestor! And yes, this is the same Cara Cowan Watts who is running against him for chief in the election next year.) 

A letter written to the Guion Miller Commission at the time of the Eastern Cherokee Applications follows. This letter can be found in the rejected Eastern Cherokee Application for William Boyd (#7759), great grandfather of Chief Baker. It was written on behalf of Boyd by his aunt. The letter exposes the fact the family had no understanding of Cherokee society or history.

• Rebecca Walker claimed an ancestor, John Rogers, was found on the Census of the Cherokee Nation in 1835 as living in the east (therefore an Emigrant Cherokee), yet also claims the same ancestor was the Chief of the Old Settlers, John Rogers, who was living west of the Mississippi in 1835. Cherokees knew the difference between Old Settler and Emigrant Cherokees. Chief Baker's ancestors didn't.
• Rebecca Walker stated her ancestors were ALL Old Settlers (those who removed before the Treaty of Echota) and that her ancestor was the chief of the Old Settlers, yet she was trying to get money due the EMIGRANT Cherokees, i.e. those who removed after the Treaty of New Echota.
• When asked why she thought she had a right to the fund due Emigrant Cherokees, Rebecca Walker said she felt one Indian had as much a right to the fund as another. In other words, she felt because she claimed to be Indian she was entitled to Indian money. She never mentioned any ancestor being forcibly removed or traveling the Trail of Tears, yet she felt entitled to Cherokee money simply because she said she was an Indian. She and the rest of her family never proved Cherokee ancestry (no matter what she claimed others had determined) and was repeatedly rejected on every application she made, yet she still felt she had a right to Cherokee money.

The maternal ancestors of Chief Baker changed their story as it suited them. They couldn't decide if they wanted to claim to be Old Settler or Emigrant Cherokees. They couldn't decide if they wanted to descend from one John Rogers (a white guy) or a different one, the Old Settler chief. It's obvious by Rebecca Walker's letter to Guion Miller that she was in over her head as a witness to their purported Cherokee ancestry. She didn't know anything about Cherokee history and only said what she thought should be said. The ever changing story is so ludicrous, I'm actually embarrassed for the family.

If they would have dropped their false claims, this story would have ended with the Eastern Cherokee applications, but unfortunately, the family continued to perpetuate the myth of Cherokee ancestry,  passing it from generation to generation. While some may believe it was harmless, it isn't. Now the chief of the Cherokee Nation, Bill John Baker, wrongly believes he has Cherokee ancestry on his maternal side. By clinging to the lies his ancestors told, he by default, claims to descend from a man he doesn't descend through, therefore making him not only part wannabe, but also an ancestor stealer.

According to an article in Indian Country Today, Cara Cowan Watts, candidate for chief in 2015, descends through the Old Settler chief, John Rogers. This is the same man the maternal ancestors of the current chief of the Cherokee Nation, Bill John Baker, falsely claimed they descended through! Did you get that? Over 100 years ago, Chief Baker's maternal ancestors tried to falsely claim Cherokee ancestry through the ancestors of Cara Cowan Watts! Oh my gosh! You can't make this stuff up, folks!

They say the past always catches up with us and I guess it's true. Our chief, the chief of the great Cherokee Nation, was raised on a "Cherokee ancestry myth" that apparently continues in his family to this day. My my my............when the past meets the present, it can be not only embarrassing, but harmful. Stay tuned for the conclusion of "When the Past Meets the Present" where we'll explore why the Chief's false claim of Cherokee ancestry matters and why it is potentially harmful to the Cherokee Nation as a whole.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

An 1896 Application + Incomplete Research = Ancestor Theft

Some researchers thought they had it all figured out, or hoped they did, so they could claim to be Cherokee, but they forgot one important thing.................Claim an ancestor that doesn't belong to you and the real descendants might come calling! 

Based only on a name, a family now claims to be Cherokee and have laid claim to another family’s ancestor. Their known ancestor gave the name of his purported ancestor and said she was Cherokee in an 1896 application for citizenship into the Cherokee Nation. Because of this, the family went straight to Cherokee records to find a name that matched. When they found one, they apparently stopped all other research, or ignored anything else found that might have suggested their real ancestor was a different person and not the Cherokee. This family has based their entire claim to this Cherokee ancestor on a name given in an 1896 application that was eventually thrown out due to widespread fraud and false testimony. 

If these researchers would have thoroughly investigated their genealogy using sound genealogical standards, they would have realized the Cherokee could not be their ancestor. If they would have done an exhaustive search of all records available, they would have realized the Cherokee could not be their ancestor. Or if they would have resolved the information that conflicted with their conclusion, they would have realized the Cherokee could not be their ancestor. But they didn’t do any of this. Incredibly, many people have now accepted the conclusion of one person and copied it to their family tree without doing their own research. The conclusion of that one person was WRONG, but, apparently, the “tree copiers” don't care because they proudly declare this Cherokee as their ancestor, though they have no credible documentation to base that claim upon.

With total disregard for truth, this family has dug up the body of a Cherokee and propped it up in their family tree, erasing all the real descendants and replacing those descendants with themselves. The one thing they didn't count on was a real descendant, ME, discovering what they did..............

Stay tuned for more on an 1896 application; and how it and an incomplete search and evaluation of genealogical records has turned one family into “ancestor stealers.” 

Those are my thoughts for today.

Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Ancestor Stealing

As I have said before, a trend I have noticed with those who falsely claim Cherokee ancestry is that of "ancestor stealing." This means someone lays claim to an ancestor that isn't theirs and then inserts that person into their family tree, building an entire genealogy around them.

I would like to discuss this topic again because, due to an 1896 application, one family has stolen an ancestor. In this case, I don't believe the theft was intentional, but instead a case of not doing an exhaustive search of all the documents available to properly identify the ancestor claimed, as well as not resolving the conflicting information available. Had they done these two things, it is very unlikely they would have wrongly claimed this well documented Cherokee as their ancestor. But more on that later. First, I want to show what happens when someone steals an ancestor from their rightful descendants.

Do you see what happens? Slowly but surely, the fake descendants start to push the real descendants aside until they, at least in that genealogy and on paper, no longer exist. Notice this statement, "And it goes on until the colonizers have erased the Indians and replaced them with themselves." That is what happens. Indians are replaced with non-Indians. Historically that is what happened with our land. Indians were pushed aside and non-Indians took over. Now that we have no land left, non-Indians are trying to push us aside and take both our ancestors and our identity. This is why we find "ancestor stealing" offensive. We are still here and we would like to hold on to the few things we have left!

I have already said, I don't think the family that "stole" the Cherokee ancestor did it intentionally, but despite that fact, they did it. They did not take the extra steps to make sure the person they claimed as their ancestor really was, so the harm is done and it has grown exponentially. Now over 50 trees exist on Ancestry.com with the same mistake. It concerns me that none of these supposed family genealogists have bothered to actually verify the information before copying it. Now there are many people who believe they are Cherokee when they aren't. 

Fortunately for the family of the stolen Cherokee, we have an abundance of records. Because of all those records, we can show that these "ancestor stealers" are wrong and we can reclaim this ancestor and restore her to her rightful place in her family tree while preventing the new intruders from trying to take what belongs to her descendants. 

Stay tuned for more on one family's mistake based on an 1896 application, how the real descendants feel about it, and how the truth is easily found when looking at all the records available on the ancestor claimed.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.






**A great big thank you to Cherokee Cynthia Thompson for her work on the diagram!**

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

This Is How We Do It! (Cherokee Wannabe Genealogy)

First, some music to get you in the mood to do some Cherokee Wannabe Genealogy!

Whew! Got so busy shaking my hind-end that I almost forgot what I was writing about today. As I wipe the sweat from my brow, I'll tell you how to do wannabe genealogy! 

Step 1 - Grab a real name from your real family tree. 

---For our example, we will use a white family tree and we will use the name John Keith.

Step 2 - Figure out some information on said real person from your family tree. (Don't worry about learning very much. You are just going to swap him out in a bit anyway.)

---White John Keith was the son of Cornelius Keith and Mary LaFoone.

Step 3 - Find a Cherokee who has the same name as your said ancestor. 

---For our example, we will use a Cherokee John Keath/Keith.

Step 4 -Learn a little about the real Cherokee. 

(Don't worry about learning too much about the Cherokee because all you need is the name and one or two details about him to make it look good. You are going to change everything else. After all, you have to make your family fit in his tree 'cause you wannabe a Cherokee!)

---John Keath/Keith was the father of a woman named Betsy. Betsy married Caleb Starr. And they were the parents of a James Starr. (Ok, that is enough to make it look good. I think we can fool them now!)

Step 5 - Mix and match the information for both people.

Hmmm......let's see, we will say this, "James Starr was the son of Caleb Starr and Betsy Keith. Betsy was the daughter of John Keith and Polly A-S-DU-I-S-DI. This John was the son of Cornelius Keith and Mary LaFoone."

Step 6 - Now build a good story around it connecting the person from your family tree to your ancestor. 

---"James Starr said his mother was a full blood, so that means both her parents were full bloods. Since John was her father, that means he was a full blood, therefore, his parents were full bloods. This John Keith was the nephew of my ancestor, Samuel or Lemuel or whatever the heck we are calling him today, so since John was a full blood Cherokee, that means my ancestor was at least part Indian!"

Step 7 - Step back and revel in your success at making yourself a Cherokee. 

(Boy, that is some slick stuff. You'll probably get away with it unless that "bee", Polly's Granddaughter, gets written to by an enraged reader asking her to explain how you managed to steal their ancestor.)

Step 8 - Have your story debunked.

(Crap! Someone emailed her!)

Yes, someone emailed me. I would post their message here, but because of the curse words in the message, it is probably best I don't. We try to keep this family friendly! :) Anyway...

It doesn't take much to debunk this one. John Keith, the son of Cornelius Keith and Mary LaFoone, was the husband of a woman named Jane or Mary Jane Mackey. Their family is pretty well documented and he had no daughter named Betsy. He is found living with his daughter, Mary E. Keith, and her husband Noble Glenn, in Eastern Division, Pickens, South Carolina in 1850. He died in South Carolina in 1853 and is buried the Oolenoy Baptist Church Cemetery in Pumpkintown, Pickens County, South Carolina. The family is repeatedly found in United States records and always listed as white.

The Cherokee John Keith, son of Du-dee-guah-na-guh and Too-nah-ye, was living in Cherokee Nation, Indian Territory in 1851 with his wife and younger children. (Betsy already had her own household.) His descendants all testified he was born east of the Mississippi River. There is a John Keith listed as living in Georgia on the 1835 census of the Cherokee Nation. The family is repeatedly found in records of the Cherokees -- 1880 and 1890 censuses, service with the Indian Home Guard (side note - John's son, George was in the same company as my 4x great grandpa, Mike Carey), etc...

So what we actually have is a white John Keith who lived and died in South Carolina and a Cherokee John Keith who lived in the old Cherokee Nation and then removed to Indian Territory on the Trail of Tears in 1838. They clearly were not the same man.

To my enraged reader, it will be okay. The truth always prevails, so I guess we should be singing something about debunking myths, huh? Come on, sing it with me.....this is how we do it...........

Those are my thoughts for today.

Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

GQGRM2QADH3E

Tweet

Ancestor Stealers

Recently, I have noticed a new trend among those claiming Cherokee ancestry--"ancestor stealers". Instead of providing a well researched, documented family tree to verify their ancestry, quite a few people are now basing their "Cherokee ancestry" on fabricated family trees. These trees quite often have the names of real Cherokees in them, but there is no connection between the Cherokee and the person who put the tree together.

For example, I saw a tree this week from a person who claimed to be the descendant of the well known Cherokee Nancy Ward. At first glance, the line of direct descendants seemed fine, until you noticed that Nancy Bean, a real descendant of Nancy Ward, was listed as the mother of William E. Bean., the tree creator's great great grandfather. The problem with that information is that all of Nancy Bean's children had the surname Johnson, her married surname. The family is extremely well documented and Nancy Bean Johnson had no son named William, let alone one named William E. Bean.

Normally, I might think the mistake was an honest one, but in this case, I don't believe it was. The woman the tree belonged to is touting herself as a person who is revitalizing and teaching the Eastern Cherokee language dialect. She gets involved in anything she sees online that says it is Cherokee. Her daughter has won an essay award meant for Native American children and has started crafting Indian style items. This woman has several fabricated family trees online where she makes it look as if she does descend from a Cherokee from very distant history. It seems no matter what it takes, she is going to try to convince people she is a Cherokee.

Often I am asked why we Cherokee people get so mad about wannabes. Well, the example above is one of those reasons. Unless you are truly a Native American, I don't think most people can begin to understand the length some frauds will go to in order to try to claim to be one of us. We understand that there are some people who truly just want to learn their ancestry, but we are also aware of many people who don't care what their actual ancestry is--they are going to claim to be Cherokee, no matter what they have to do--even if that means stealing someone else's ancestors and claiming them. This makes the true descendants of that person angry.

If you are researching your ancestry looking for verification of a Cherokee family story, please only use information that you can support with documentation. Be extremely wary of ANY family tree you find online. You don't know where that information came from and you don't know the goal of the person who posted that tree. Even if they are not an "ancestor stealer", they could be very bad at genealogical research.

No matter who your ancestors were, whether they were Cherokee or other, they deserve to be remembered and honored by you. By claiming someone other than those you actually descend from, not only will you be an "ancestor stealer" but also denying your true ancestors the place in your family history they deserve.

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

CC
The Granddaughter

copyright 2010, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet