Elizabeth Warren is not a friend to Indian Country

I have serious concern over Elizabeth Warren's claim that she is a non-enrolled Native American, "proved" by DNA. My concern is best explained with the words of anthropologist Michael Lambert, a citizen of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. He described Cherokee identity politics as a "battle over sovereignty":

"One of the terrains on which this is being fought is that of how we define "Indian." The current effort to define Indian as a racial/cultural group is an effort to extinguish Indian sovereignty. The only way for Indian nations to defend and expand their sovereignty is to make exclusive claim to defining who is Indian and what it means to be Indian...
What does this have to do with non-enrolled Cherokees identifying as such? I see the basis of claims to Indian identity to be political acts. This is, and has been, a battle over sovereignty. One who bases their claim to Indian identity on any basis other than sovereignty is not taking a pro-Indian position."

To be very clear, despite everything Warren said and promised in her speech to the National Congress of American Indians and despite her new efforts to win over Indian country by proposing legislation "for us", she is not taking a pro-Indian position because she continues to claim she's Native American while admitting she is not enrolled. 
 
Those who insist Warren's DNA test legitimizes her claim are not taking a pro-Indian position either. DNA doesn't define who is or is not an Indian. Only tribes can do that. To say anything else, including DNA, determines who is or is not Indian is a political attack on tribal sovereignty. The three Cherokee Indian nations who have government to government relationships with the United States have said Warren is not Cherokee. That should be the end of it. Unfortunately Warren refuses to let it go.

By trying to make Native American identity about race instead of tribal sovereignty, Warren has done more harm with this DNA test than she ever did with her false claim of being Cherokee. I truly hope authentic Native Americans watch what she does more than they listen to what she says. She is not a friend to us or our tribal governments. Instead, she is a "skeen yoneg" [white devil] and she's leading an attack on tribal sovereignty that could destroy all of us.

The only thing Warren had to do was admit she was wrong and apologize. She not only refused to do that, but pushed back against it until she went too far. Now her time for apology has passed. At this point, the only thing we Native Americans can do to show her how incredibly alarming and offensive her actions have become is to turn our backs on her while asking the American people to join us and do the same.

#shunWarren

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

***For those who might argue she is no longer claiming a tribe but simply the generic label of "Native American",  that is absurd. Until she was called out for her false claim of Cherokee ancestry, she specifically claimed to be Cherokee. She still claims the same lineage and family story, so her claim is still the same even if she no longer publicly identifies as Cherokee.***

copyright 2018, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Elizabeth Warren's "white" Great Grandfather Shot an Indian

*This is a repost from 2012. Warren's great grandfather was specifically listed as a white man when he shot a Creek Indian in 1906.*

Elizabeth Warren is the granddaughter of Hannie Crawford, daughter of John H. Crawford. Warren says the Crawfords were Cherokee.

According to the Boston Globe, 

"Rosco Crawford, Hannie Crawford’s brother, told (his granddaughter) that as a young boy living in the Creek Nation of Indian Territory, the Indians were “pretty mean.” Once, when a Creek was hitting Crawford’s younger brother, their father shot and wounded the Indian, according to her biography, on file at California State University at Fullerton."

The story Hannie's brother, Rosco, told his granddaughter is true. 

Muskogee Times Democrat; Muskogee, Oklahoma; August 13, 1906, p.1.

Muskogee Times Democrat; Muskogee, Oklahoma; August 17, 1906; p.4.

Why is this significant? Because it refers to John H. Crawford, Elizabeth Warren's great grandfather who was allegedly Cherokee, as a white man.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2018, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Elizabeth Warren doesn't need to take a DNA test. Here's why...

I can't believe I'm going to open this can of worms, but someone needs to do so after the repeated cries for Elizabeth Warren, US Senator from Massachusetts, to take a DNA test to prove or disprove her claim of Native American ancestry.

Before we pry this can open, first and foremost, I'm a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and I will always defend tribal sovereignty. My concern over Warren's claim that she is a non-enrolled Native American is best explained with the words of anthropologist Michael Lambert, a citizen of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. He described Cherokee identity politics as a "battle over sovereignty":

"One of the terrains on which this is being fought is that of how we define "Indian." The current effort to define Indian as a racial/cultural group is an effort to extinguish Indian sovereignty. The only way for Indian nations to defend and expand their sovereignty is to make exclusive claim to defining who is Indian and what it means to be Indian...

What does this have to do with non-enrolled Cherokees identifying as such? I see the basis of claims to Indian identity to be political acts. This is, and has been, a battle over sovereignty. One who bases their claim to Indian identity on any basis other than sovereignty is not taking a pro-Indian position."

To be very clear, despite everything Warren said and promised in her speech to the National Congress of American Indians and despite all her new efforts to support Indian country through legislation, she is not taking a pro-Indian position because she continues to claim she's Native American while admitting she is not enrolled. 

Those who continue to insist Warren take a DNA test to "settle the issue" are not taking a pro-Indian position either. DNA doesn't define who is or is not an Indian. Only tribes can do that. To say anything else, including DNA, determines who is or is not Indian is a political attack on tribal sovereignty. The three Cherokee Indian nations who have government to government relationships with the United States have said Warren is not Cherokee. That should have been the end of it. Unfortunately it wasn't.

The genealogy of Warren has been done and shows no indication of Cherokee, Delaware, or any other Indian nation ancestry. The genealogy along with the fact no legitimate Indian nation claims her should have been the end of it. Unfortunately it wasn't.

Now we have no choice but to address the areas of family lore and DNA. This is where it gets ugly and I'm not happy that I feel I need to write about it. I will not get into a discussion of DNA as a whole. Warren's family lore is very specific and her claim hinges on one person as a racially 'full blooded Cherokee.' That person and their origins will be the sole focus of my discussion of DNA.

I'm a genealogist who adheres to the Standards for Sound Genealogical Practices adopted by the Board for the Certification of Professional Genealogists. The research our team did documents Warren's lineage back to Preston Crawford, a white man who was born in Tennessee and died in Missouri. At this time, no credible documentation has been found that conclusively lists the names of the parents of Preston Crawford. 

Sadly, Warren doesn't care about documentation or facts. She's based her entire claim to being Cherokee or Native American on a family story that says Preston Crawford's parents were Jonathon Crawford and "Sarah" Neoma (Oma) Smith. This same story continues by declaring Neoma Smith as the daughter of Wyatt Smith and sister of William Bracken Smith. 

Because this purported lineage is strictly based on a family story found in a newsletter written by an amateur genealogist, I want to make it clear that we are discussing lore, not a lineage supported by documentation. Normally I'd ignore the lore but because Warren is dead set on continuing this claim, further examination of this family story is necessary.

According to the lore, Neoma Smith was a (racially) full blood Cherokee Indian. Warren and her supporters appear to believe this (racially) full blood ancestor allows Warren to claim Native American heritage and that it gave her the right to claim minority status as a Harvard Law professor.

Let's give Warren and her supporters the benefit of the doubt on this lineage. Let's allow them to continue to claim Warren's documented ancestor, Preston Crawford, was the son of a Jonathon Crawford and Neoma Smith, the daughter of Wyatt Smith.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's drop the demand for Warren to take a DNA test. I explained above why I don't support it, but there's another reason the demand should be dropped. We don't need it to learn about Warren's alleged Cherokee ancestor.

The Y-DNA from Wyatt Smith's male descendants has already been tested by at least one of Warren's purported Smith male cousins, a descendant of William Bracken Smith.

William Bracken Smith was the son of Wyatt Smith and alleged brother of Neoma Smith Crawford. The Y-DNA test traces the direct descent of males only--son to father to father's father to father's father's father and so on. Apparently Y-DNA changes slowly over time so the same DNA is passed from one male to the next with few mutations (differences) occurring.

The only people that can produce a "racially" full blood Indian child are two other "racially" full blood Indians. If Neoma were "racially" a full blood Indian as the family lore says, then Wyatt Smith would have had to be a "racially" full blood Indian as well. He wasn't. The results of the Y-DNA test taken by Smith's descendant indicated Wyatt Smith's haplogroup was R-M269, the dominant branch of R1b in Western Europe.

I'm no DNA expert but it defies logic to believe a man with origins in Western Europe fathered a "racially" full blood Indian daughter. The Y-DNA of Wyatt Smith, Warren's purported ancestor, combined with the facts no legitimate Indian nation claims Warren and that her genealogy indicates no Indian ancestry should be the end of it. I fear it won't be.

So America, there you have it--a DNA test that gives information on the origins of one of Warren's purported "full blood" Cherokee ancestors. Take the information and do with it what you will. As I said above, it's a can of worms I'd rather have left sealed, but enough is enough. If Warren wants to continue with this family story that her alleged Smith ancestors were Cherokee, then she must take everything that goes along with it, including the DNA results. Wyatt Smith's paternal origins are from Western Europe. He was not a "racially" full blood Indian. Therefore he could not have fathered a "racially" full blood Indian child.

In closing, I'd like to reiterate that DNA does not, in any way, determine who is or is not considered Native American. There is no DNA test that can determine that. Indian nations determine citizenship just like the United States determines who is American. Americans would never dream of requesting someone get a DNA test to prove they are American. Instead, they might ask to see one's proof or documentation of citizenship in the United States. We in Indian Country understand that. We wish Americans could give our Indian nations the same respect. We are not a race of people that can simply take a DNA test and show we are citizens of one of the various tribes throughout the US. We are citizens of nations and the way we prove it is the exact same way Americans prove they are citizens of the U.S. We provide documentation.
  
Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.






For more information on why calls for a DNA test to prove/disprove one is Native American are dangerous to tribal sovereignty, please read the book, "Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science" by Dr. Kim Tallbear.

The Lambert quote is from "Becoming Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the Twenty-first Century" by Circe Sturm.

copyright 2018, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Did Warren invent the story of racist grandparents?

In 2012, while running for the US Senate, reporters at the Boston Herald discovered Elizabeth Warren had listed herself as a minority in law directories that were often used for hiring purposes. It's believed by many that Warren listed herself as such in order to game the system and take advantage of affirmative action. Those beliefs are supported by the fact Harvard used her for diversity purposes and considered her Harvard Law's first "woman of color."

When questioned about listing herself as a minority, Warren said she was Native American and she further elaborated by proclaiming that her parents had to elope because her father's parents despised Indians so much, they refused to allow him to marry her mother, a purported Indian.

The problem with Warren's story is that none of the evidence supports it. Her genealogy shows no indication of Cherokee ancestry. Her parents' wedding doesn't resemble an elopement. And additional evidence doesn't show any indication of her Herring grandparents being Indian haters.

In 1937, Elizabeth Warren's paternal grandparents, Grant and Ethel Herring, made the one and a half hour trip from their home in Wetumka, Oklahoma to Sallisaw, Oklahoma to visit Grant's brother, Frank Herring. Later all of them made a thirty minute drive to Fort Smith, Arkansas to visit Frank's brother-in-law, Carnall Wheeler, and his family. While the women stayed at the Wheeler home to visit, the men spent the day playing golf at the Hardscrabble Country Club.

Democrat American, Sallisaw, Oklahoma, September 30, 1937. Click to enlarge.

That snippet from the Society Pages may seem rather mundane and insignificant but it isn't. While Warren has repeatedly said her paternal grandparents disliked Indians, this news clipping indicates otherwise. The man Warren's paternal grandpa spent the day playing golf with, Carnall Wheeler, was an Indian and listed as one-fourth Cherokee by blood on the Dawes Roll.

Dawes Census Card 999 - Carnall Wheeler outlined in green - Click to enlarge

Section of Dawes Census Card 999 - Carnall Wheeler - Click to enlarge

It was no secret that Carnall Wheeler was an Indian. Upon his graduation from the Virginia Military Institute in 1909, his biography referred to him as an "Aboriginal" and there were biting references to war-whoops and the green-corn dance (rats appear to be new students.) One of his nicknames was listed as "Squaw."

Virginia Military Institute Yearbook, Bomb, 1909

Wheeler's biography is uncomfortable to read because there are racist remarks included but it leaves no doubt that people knew he was an Indian.

The golf outing was not the first time Warren's paternal grandparents met Wheeler. He was in attendance at the 25th wedding anniversary party for Frank and Kitty Herring in October 1936. Warren's paternal grandparents attended that party so they knew who he was. They made a conscious decision to accompany Frank to Wheeler's house in 1937. They could have excused themselves from the visit in a number of ways, but they chose not to do so.

Clearly, Wheeler experienced some degree of racism in his life due to his being Indian. Despite this, there is one person we know who did not have a problem associating with him -- Grant Herring, the grandfather of Elizabeth Warren, the same grandfather she claims was racist against Indians.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading. 

copyright 2016, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Why won't Chief Baker hold Elizabeth Warren accountable?

In a recent Associated Press article that has been widely distributed, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Bill John Baker is quoted as saying the attacks on Elizabeth Warren by Trump and his supporters are "incredibly offensive and distasteful."

While I agree with Baker that Trump and his supporters are doing and saying incredibly offensive and distasteful things, I also believe Warren should be held accountable for her role in the fiasco. Baker’s failure to address the issue of Warren’s fraudulent claims of Cherokee ancestry troubles people and they wonder if he is more concerned about helping the Democratic Party than he is in defending the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation. His past actions may offer the answer to that question.

On April 8, 2016 at the Carl Albert Dinner during the OklahomaState Democratic Convention, Bill John Baker was the keynote speaker. “He gave a stirring speech highlighting ... his commitment to the Democratic Party.”

Click to Enlarge

Recent examples of that commitment are shown in the following two images.

February 27, 2016, while campaigning for his wife, Hillary, Bill Clinton was introduced by Chief Baker who also presented him with a ceremonial blanket.

Click to Enlarge

In June 2016, Chief Baker and the Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. met with Elizabeth Warren, the U.S. Senator who falsely claims to be Cherokee, and Baker tweeted that she is a champion of the people.

Click to Enlarge

And, in 2012, despite the fact that citizens from the Cherokee Nation, United Keetoowah Band, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians were speaking out against Warren’s false claim of Cherokee identity, Baker excused it and said he wished everyone felt such a kinship to us.

Because he’s the chief of the Cherokee Nation, concerning the issue of Cherokee identity politics, Baker should be taking a pro-Indian position but he isn’t.

Anthropologist Michael Lambert, a citizen of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians described Cherokee identity politics as a “battle over sovereignty”:

"One of the terrains on which this is being fought is that of how we define “Indian.” The current effort to define Indian as a racial/cultural group is an effort to extinguish Indian sovereignty.  The only way for Indian nations to defend and expand their sovereignty is to make exclusive claim to defining who is Indian and what it means to be Indian. If Indians have sovereignty, then culture, behavior, and belief should have nothing to do with who is or is not Indian. … What does this have to do with non-enrolled Cherokees identifying as such? I see the basis of claims to Indian identity to be political acts. This is, and has been, a battle over sovereignty. One who bases their claim to Indian identity on any basis other than sovereignty is not taking a pro-Indian position.” [Emphasis mine]

Despite her meeting with Chief Baker, Warren has never apologized or retracted her false claim to a Cherokee/Indian identity. Warren has committed, and is continuing to commit, a political act that challenges tribal sovereignty. By ignoring the fact that citizenship in an Indian Nation is a factor in who is or is not Indian, Bill John Baker is allowing a direct attack on tribal sovereignty while offering no defense against the attack. He is not acting in our best interest or in the interest of Indian Country as a whole. Instead, he’s abusing his office to try to influence U.S. politics.

Baker has twice taken the Oath of Office swearing to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Cherokee Nation. Our Constitution includes the law for determining who is and who isn’t Cherokee. Baker is not defending our Constitution when he turns a blind eye to Warren’s challenge to our sovereignty. Some view his defense and support of Warren as a willful neglect of his duties and as a violation of his oath of office.

Making stereotypical war whoops and using our ancestors’ names to taunt someone is unacceptable, but so is engaging in ethnic fraud and undermining tribal sovereignty. The Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, Bill John Baker, had the opportunity to denounce the actions of members of both political parties while also educating the American public about why all of these things matter. Sadly, he failed to do so because it would have required him to put the Cherokee Nation’s interests above his own personal political loyalties. Instead of remaining neutral, he chose a side. If there was any doubt before, there should not be any now. He is “Bill John Baker, Democrat” first and “Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation Bill John Baker” second.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading






Michael Lambert quote source -

Sturm, Circe. Becoming Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the Twenty-first Century. School for Advanced Research Press, 2011.

copyright 2016, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Andrea Smith and the battle over sovereignty

Most of you have heard the Andrea Smith story by now. She's a member of academia who like Elizabeth Warren, US Senator from Massachusetts, claims to be Cherokee. I've not done Smith's genealogy, so I can't comment on her ancestry, but to do so would detract from the real point anyway. Her false claim, like Warren's, is an assault on the sovereignty of all Indian Nations, but specifically the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. 

False claim? Can we say that without doing her genealogy? Yes because this is not about who Andrea Smith claims, but instead, who claims her. None of the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes claim her, therefore she isn't Cherokee, period.

Despite this, Smith continues to disrespect Cherokees and our tribal sovereignty by saying, "My enrollment status does not impact my Cherokee identity or my continued commitment to organizing for justice for Native communities."

Justice for Native communities? It is impossible to attack our sovereignty and seek justice for us at the same time. A person does one or the other. Smith's words suggest she is taking a pro-Indian position but her actions show this is not true.

In the book, “Becoming Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the Twenty-first Century” by Circe Sturm, anthropologist Michael Lambert, a citizen of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians described Cherokee identity politics as a “battle over sovereignty”:

"One of the terrains on which this is being fought is that of how we define “Indian.” The current effort to define Indian as a racial/cultural group is an effort to extinguish Indian sovereignty.  The only way for Indian nations to defend and expand their sovereignty is to make exclusive claim to defining who is Indian and what it means to be Indian. If Indians have sovereignty, then culture, behavior, and belief should have nothing to do with who is or is not Indian. After all, we wouldn’t deny someone’s Germanness because they hate sauerkraut, nor would we have the audacity to recognize someone as German simply because they love it. German is what German does. Indian is what Indian does…

What does this have to do with non-enrolled Cherokees identifying as such? I see the basis of claims to Indian identity to be political acts. This is, and has been, a battle over sovereignty. One who bases their claim to Indian identity on any basis other than sovereignty is not taking a pro-Indian position.”

By rejecting the idea that enrollment or citizenship in an Indian Nation is a factor in who is or is not Indian, Andrea Smith is taking an anti-Indian position. That is a direct attack on tribal sovereignty. No matter what Smith says, she is not acting in our best interest. She is not our friend and she is not seeking justice for us. Instead, she's forced us to a national stage where we must defend our tribal sovereignty, and once again, battle to protect one of the only things we Cherokees have left - our identity.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2015, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

No Pity for Warren

 

Elizabeth Warren is hurt and angry over the media coverage of her false claim of Cherokee ancestry. That would be funny if it weren't so pitiful. All she had to do was investigate, tell the truth, and the issue would have gone away. She could have used her new book to acknowledge the truth and apologize for her blatant disrespect of minorities, but instead, she's continued to perpetuate the lie and attempted to portray herself as a victim.

“What really threw me, though, were the constant attacks from the other side,” she writes about the 2012 Senate campaign. “I would almost persuade myself that I was starting to get the hang of full-throttle campaigning and then — bam! Out of left field, the state Republican Party, or the Brown campaign, or some blogger, would launch a rocket at me.”

Doing the research, finding the facts and sharing the truth about someone is not an attack. If people were launching rockets, it is because Warren gave them a big target. Research was done to determine if she had Cherokee ancestry. She didn't have any. That is not an opinion. It is a sound conclusion based on a preponderance of evidence found in historical documents. No one had any control over the lies told except Elizabeth Warren. She had control over it when she opened her mouth and told the story. She also had control when she repeatedly defended her story, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If Elizabeth Warren was a victim, she was only a victim of her own arrogance and dishonesty. If she felt hurt and angry over what happened, she has no one to blame but herself. She could have, should have, just told the truth. She chose not to do that. I don't feel sorry for her.


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Friday Funny - Even a Cherokee baby knows....

...it was wrong for Elizabeth Warren to claim to be Cherokee when she isn't.

Hope you enjoyed our Friday Funny! Have a great weekend, everyone!


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2013, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet