- This topic has 6 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
After reviewing some of the Blackfoot postings on this site I have to wonder…have we become too “scholarly” in our pursuit of the Eastern Blackfoot?
To illustrate this point allow me to create an imaginative future world in which Austria…to choose a random example…has ceased to exist as a cohesive and independent nation, replaced by a greater conglomerate of nations called “New Europe”. Now let’s step back in time again for a moment to when this “Austria” was a separate nation and a woman with red hair and freckles was born there…
Our redhead grows up in Austria and then she moves to North America. People there notice an accent they cannot id. They wonder at her different customs. They also take note of her coloring and finally ask her if she is Irish. “No,” she tells them. “I am Austrian.” She eventually has grandchildren and she tells them of her heritage and these grandchildren pass the story on to their granchildren, but this new generation refuses to believe this “family legend” without proper proof. What was an Austrian doing in North America at that particular time period? Was there a general migration? An escape from tyranny? An invasion? After much digging and a terrible degree of self-questioning angst, they finally find some evidence of Austrian heritage in this woman, their great great grandmother…but now they wonder if it would be more accurate to classify her as a Celt since this ancient tribe predated the Austrians in this land and were predominantly redheaded. To make matters worse, they discover an Italian in her lineage and then a Czech. “With all this mixed heritage, how could she have called herself Austrian?!” they declare indignantly. Yet our redheaded woman grew up in Austria with family and friends that also understood themselves to be Austrians. It was how they and others perceived them at the time. This perception is lost on our future generation for whom Austria no longer exists. “New Europe” has replaced it with the only evidence of it having been there at all lingering in names like “Oesterburg” and “Oesterkirche”.
I wonder…are we allowing ourselves to avoid the obvious too studiously in an attempt to legitimatize our efforts to the scoffers, and in so doing perhaps discouraging some of the very people carrying pieces of the puzzle we so desperately need to complete the Eastern Blackfoot picture?
It’s an interesting concept. Maybe we can discuss it?
While anyone may recognize your analogy, I disagree with your premise that we apply too restrictive proof which discourages the flow of information, and that’s evident in answers to inquiries. We have in fact helped nearly ‘all comers’. I’m unaware that we have discouraged anyone’s pursuit of their ancestors or that we engage in the “who’s Indian and who’s not” sophistry.
Would you point out specific instances where you have seen this has ocurred so we can discuss it more fully?
Bill
From my expierence here, most people do find thier way through the muddled papers of the late 1800’s and really once they get behind the outward migration the records (although scant) do prove out thier ancestors oral history., so really I think that if anyone is serious enough to hang in there or “here” that they will be rewarded with the proof they have been looking for.
One current example is the David Collins line!
Cedar:
We need to be “scholarly” as we look into this. There are those who have created problems on this forum in the past, acusing us of interpreting events to suit our personal needs. You recently joined so have not been involved in this.
Because our ancestors were known to have said that they were Blackfoot, we are trying to solve the mystery of what that means in a way that others can’t refute or deride. This means that we lean towards what is observable and can be proven.
Techteach
Cedar Spirits
You have a piont, however, for Native Americans, not only does the Government place a higher standard upon us, but often the general Native community does as well. Often in dealing with “mystery” communities and tribes we have seen all too often the “band wagon” effect where anyone with a mixed heritage tries to jump on. Some would say the “Melungeon” band wagon would be a good example of this. So it is indeed a higher standard that needs to be applied in researching Native heritage. Those that get turned off by a scholarly approach are probably less likely to find the answers they seek. People often have to stick around long enough to notice patterns.
I would agree with Techteach, Tom, and Bill although I personally do not believe that there is scant information out there as I once did. There is too much here in this place alone to disprove that premise. Stick around, be patient, muddle through, lurk even, add info. and perhaps over the coarse of doing that one may be able to find or decipher for themselves what they are looking for in this journey.
Oh, and be not afraid to voice your opinions. Mine certainly have been my own and sometimes not viewed none to well by others. The piont is that we are all here to learn something of our selves and make sense of the materials we find regarding our ancestors. Circumstancial, scholarly, DNA, legal, speculative; these are all evidence and proofs worked with here on this forum. Welcome to Saponitown and enjoy the roller coaster ride.
🙂
Wow! What a response. Dear me, gentlemen, but I only suggested we lighten up our attitude, not change our approach.
I’m not certain you did understand me, Bill. Your mildly defensive response doesn’t seem to connect with my intention at all…but since you are not alone, clearly my wording must be at fault.
Tom, your reply perhaps keys in on where my ending sentence may have been misinterpreted (or poorly expressed). You see, we are not all here looking for proof. Many of us believe our grandparents. We have simply joined to offer a puzzle piece while attempting to push our own personal history farther back in time. Linda’s article really inspired me and I thought, “Let’s put more names into the pot. Let’s see where this adventure leads.”
Techteach. When I put scholarly in quotes I did not mean we should stop the patiently detailed, painstaking, and truly impressive research that attracted me to this site in the first place. I am an avid armchair scholar who enjoys research as much as I do chocolate (almost). To me “scholarly” means when we overanalyze the facts we find. In other words, if great gran and her friends called themselves Blackfoot and we discover a few other Indian groups (some “extinct”) or races in the line as well, good for us and our pursuit of history…but we should still honor her choice of id. I know what all of us are up against. I read some very offensive remarks not too long ago on another site posted by, I believe, a Montana Blackfoot who ridiculed the notion of the “Eastern” Blackfoot, claiming that we were all Non-Indians simply wanting to be Indians “sooo badly” we were willing to reach for anything. Goodness! I’m just happy to be alive and human. I love all my ancestors.
Let me explain my inspiration for my post. It was Linda’s words about not wanting to be a “hard-hearted granddaughter” and her overall exchange with the “devil’s advocate” Itconani that prompted her words. I thought perhaps we should worry less about proving ourselves to others, accept who we are (all facets) without apology and enjoy the journey.
Collins. Thanks for the welcome. I confess, your reply confuses me the most. We are all what we are and that’s a good thing that no one else can take from us. I’m guessing you are mostly Native with a few other races mixed in…loving ancestors you surely honor as well, right? What the Government or other Natives think should not matter, should it? It should not change your self-perception…your essence, your spirit. The bandwagon thing really confuses me. What are “mystery” communities and what is this bandwagon anyone with mixed heritage is trying to jump on? Aren’t we all mixed by now? Thanks, Collins, for the encouragement to express my thoughts. It was slightly unnerving to find myself in the adversarial position when my original intention was quite the opposite. You’re right about the roller coaster. Whew. What a beginning!
Now, couldn’t we all have a tiny bit more faith and take ourselves a little less seriously (while tucking in at night with our genweb papers and copies of Eastern Shore Indians, of course…keep the pencils on the nightstand, though…spouses don’t like rolling over onto those).
Cedar
Cedar:
I don’t disagree with your statements and opinions. In fact, I addressed you in another part, stating my belief, without proof, that my Rev. War ancestor was mixed. And I do believe my ggggrandmother who said she was Blackfoot Cherokee. I simply feel compelled to make sense of this comment. So I read articles in old journals and original source materials as I have time, looking for references to what that means. One of my theories was that it might have been Christianized NA who were following the “black coats.”
Anyway, following a major dust-up a while back, the moderators all agreed that this forum try to avoid posting anything that someone will attack. So, while I accept the fact that my ggggrandmother said she was Blackfoot, I post history and genealogical information that I hope will help others who come here searching for information on Eastern Shore NA.
As a consequence, I have seen this web site on several university sites, , including foreign, listed as a reference link on Eastern Shore NA. And this has been a goal.
Techteach
A well-deserved reward, Techteach, for your diligent efforts. Congrats.
Well, I’m off to Genealogy at last…where I hope to maintain a much lower profile. Thanks, everyone, for your indulgence.
Cedar
Cedar,
I reject your criticism because you have never posited a principle point clearly. Anyone is invited to state their opinion and no one will attack an ‘opinion’ . To post a criticism of someone’s opinion is ‘okay’ , but in that case, the onus of proof is on the critic to present factual evidence contrary to the opinion being expressed. “Free Speach” works both ways. To post a criticism of an opinion without contrarial evidence only amounts to a personal attack. What say you?
We still invite you to discuss the issue you raised, which you did not adress in your rebuttals. No one wants to drive you away… I, for one, would like you to state your criticism in plain words.
Bill
Techteach. Of course, all of us…well, all of you, cuz I’ve only just joined…but you addressed me, so I addressed you, but your graciousness (and modesty) is admirable and duly noted.
Bill. Please read my posts again. I’m not attacking anyone. I was offering my support to Linda’s point of view and others like her who posted during the Itconani discussion about placing more faith in our kin. I don’t feel driven away by any means! You saw what Collins wrote. He welcomed me to stay even after my offbeat manner of expressing myself and Techteach even said he did not disagree with me. Why would I feel driven away? When I said I’m “off to Genealogy at last” I meant “Shared Genealogy” here on this site where Linda suggested I post my material last week. I felt I’d expressed my opinions plain enough…and no doubt more than enough, especially for a beginner.
Cedar
Cedar:
I am glad you interpreted what I said in the way you did. I hoped I did not drive you away. It was not my intention. Welcome to saponitown!
Techteach
PS: I am a she.
Pardon my bad manners, Cedar, I usually remember them half way through the door, anyway welcome to Saponi Town Town, the coolest camp in real “Saponi Time”!
Thank you for the welcome, Techteach and Tom…I’ve been looking forward to this experience for some time (building up the courage to join up, you know…just like going to camp, Tom…scary, but worth it).
Sorry about the gender oops, Techteach…think I got you a bit muddled with PappyDick who also answered my first thread and mentioned a wife in one of his.
See you all in Genealogy soon.
Cedar
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
