New stickers for American Indians/First Nations/Native Americans? [closed]

Question

I have questions and suggestions regarding American Indian/First Nations/Native American stickers.  Please read the full question(s)/suggestion(s) and add your ideas in the comments.

https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Space:New_Stickers_for_American_Indians/First_Nations/Native_Americans&public=1

Thank you!

For a look at the complexity of the ancestry of an American Indian, I have linked Allan Lionel Sheppard.  Allan was born on the Santee Reservation and was an enrolled member of the Santee Sioux Indians.  His father was an English immigrant, and so, Allan had 1/2 English roots.  His mother was 3/8 French-Canadian, 1/4 Sisseton (a band of Dakota), 1/4 Irish, and 1/8 Ojibwe.  Allan attended the Morris and Pipestone Indian Training Schools (Indian boarding schools).  He is listed on the 1910 U. S. Census Special Schedule for Indian Populations.  After marriage (to an Ojibwe woman), he lived with Ojibwe at White Earth and Leech Lake reservations.  It is not clear if his enrollment with the Santee Sioux was continued.  Allan's daughter has clearly voiced her preference for the term Indian instead of Native American.

[edited to add Stickers tag to get the attention of Templates Project members who can facilitate this change]

Comments

Kathie - could you please link me to the new sticker?  (I wasn't aware we had reached a consensus here.)  I am glad to hear the new sticker will not use the terms nation, tribe, band, and others.  I am still hoping to arrive at consensus on the two other sticker suggestions I proposed.  

Angi - could you help me understand how the proposed stickers take away from the pride you feel in your Tribe and Nation?  Thank you.

---

It’s the same sticker, it just displays differently now.

---

Kathie - could you please comment on proposed stickers 1 and 3 above?  Please comment with agreement that these stickers will be useful or disagreement explaining why these stickers will not be useful.  Thank you.

---

To clarify for others reading this discussion.  The sticker was (when this discussion started):

... ... ... was a Native American.

... ... ... was a Native American and member of the Cherokee tribe.

... ... ... was a Canadian First Peoples .

... ... ... was a Canadian First Peoples and member of the Mi'kmaq Nation.

The changed sticker now reads:

... ... ... was Cherokee.

... ... ... was Ojibwe.

And I understand (from Peggy below) that it adds a category.  Does that mean a category is created automatically when the sticker is used?

---

SD asked "Does that mean a category is created automatically when the sticker is used?"

In the case of the Native American sticker, yes.

If we create the ancestors sticker you're seeking, I would recommend we *not* apply categories; that will allow greater flexibility in what is put into the sticker.

---

Jillaine, I obviously missed the discussion to change the sticker and have it automatically create categories since I thought we were discussing proposed changes here.  I must have missed it in my G2G feed.  Could you point me to that discussion in G2G?  Thank you.

---

And as noted elsewhere the "Descendant" sticker works very well for those with Native American ancestors.  There doesn't seem to be a need for an additional sticker just for descendants of Native Americans.  Template:Descendant (wikitree.com)

---

Kathie, perhaps you misunderstood - in my comment to Jillaine, I was referring to this change:

The sticker was (when this discussion started):

... ... ... was a Native American.

... ... ... was a Native American and member of the Cherokee tribe.

... ... ... was a Canadian First Peoples .

... ... ... was a Canadian First Peoples and member of the Mi'kmaq Nation.

The changed sticker now reads:

... ... ... was Cherokee.

... ... ... was Ojibwe.

And I understand (from Peggy below) that it adds a category.

---

But there is a difference between being "Cherokee" as well as being a member of a tribe. You can be a descendant but not be a citizen of a tribe or not be eligible to be a citizen.  And it should be separated as to whom was actually a known citizen of a tribe and not just Claim to be. Because yes there are those who claim but have no proof or documentation to back it up, all they have is family stories. Also there could be someone who is Indigenous and members of more then one tribe. I find there was nothing wrong with "...." was Native American and a member of the Cherokee Tribe. There was nothing wrong with "..." Was Native American. Or was "..." was a Canadian First People and a member of the Mi'knaq Nation.

I do have issue with a generic title such as "..." was Cherokee. That's fine and dandy but we're they also a citizen? Which tribe?? It should be more then just a generic blanket statement.

---

The trouble with using Native American or American Indian in the statement is that several Wikitree-ers have strong preferences for one or the other.  And on a great many profiles, it is completely unnecessary.  

I think we have already covered that Wikitree's policy for sources on all profiles for all facts will mean that sources will need to be documented for AI/FN/NA ancestry, membership, citizenship, or affiliation.  

I have talked about the concerns of needing to create a sticker that is more open-ended to honor ancestors connected to historical bands/communities/tribes/nations, AND the need on some profiles to highlight enrollment (or citizenship) in the communities/reservations/sovereign nations of today.  That is why I proposed three stickers:

1) This sticker works for profiles of people (dead or alive) who do/did or do/did not consider themselves to be Indian/Native, and the writer wants to acknowledge Native roots.

Allan has [Dakota] ancestors.

Allan has [Sisseton Dakota] ancestors.

Allan has [Dakota and Ojibwe] ancestors.

Angelique has [Muskogee (Creek)] ancestors.

2) This sticker works for profiles of people who clearly live/lived as and identify/identified as a [fill in the blank].

Kabupi [is/was] [Sisseton].

Kabupi [is/was] [Dakota].

Kabupi [is/was] [Sisseton Dakota].

Angelique [is/was] [Muskogee (Creek)].

3) This sticker works for profiles of enrolled American Indians/Native Americans.

Alice [is/was] an enrolled member of [White Earth Nation].

Joseph [is/was] an enrolled member of [the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community].

or perhaps you would prefer the word citizen???

Alice [is/was] an enrolled citizen of [White Earth Nation].

I should add:  I chose the word ancestors - instead of roots or origins - for the first sticker because an ancestor is a thing that can be proved.  Roots and origins are a little more vague.

Answer 1

I think you have made a good case for this being reviewed and updated.

I'm not sure what the end product should look like but we could also consider ... Is an Indigenous person from ... (Nation or nations).

Thanks for starting this conversation.

Comments

The father of Allan Lionel Sheppard - https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Sheppard-1276 - was born in Somerset England, and I have included the English Ancestors sticker on his profile.  It reads, "Allan Sheppard has English ancestors." Allan was born in the U.S. on the Santee Reservation in northern Nebraska because his mother's family was exiled there following the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862.  After reading his profile and the many included sources, please tell me why I should not be able to highlight his mother's half of his mixed heritage?  Allan, his mother, and his grandfather were alway seen as and identified as Indians.  Why should I not be able to include a sticker which highlights his heritage from his mother as well as his father?  Why should I not be able to include a sticker which states "Allan has Dakota ancestors."?  Many other nationalities have similar stickers on Wikitree.

---

Regarding the third proposed sticker:

(examples)
Alice [is/was] an enrolled member of [White Earth Nation].

Joseph [is/was] an enrolled member of [the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community].

I do not see "problems of differing terminology used by different entities" since the [] at the end would be a flexible fill in the blank.  For passed or elders, this is easy to source by finding the person on an annuity roll.  The writer can enter the community or nation.  Since it is not a category, variations among writers would not be an issue.

For many living American Indians, enrollment is a great source of pride and something one may want to highlight on a profile.  

For both categories and stickers, it is important to remember that for Indians who never lived on a reservation, an historical band or tribe is needed to highlight or categorize their heritage.  For more recent people, a reservation, nation, or recognized- or non-recognized-community is often needed.  

White Earth Nation was not established until 1867.  To highlight heritage (using a sticker) for one who lived before that time, one may need a sticker which states, "Kahdishquayzaince was Mille Lacs Band Ojibwe."  For a living or recently passed person when one may not know the clan or band of their ancestors, one may want to show pride as a member of a sovereign nation with a sticker stating, "Simon is/was an enrolled member of White Earth Nation."

---

Regarding Allan, the descendants sticker can easily say:  "Allan was a descendant of Irene Coursolle, a Dakota" (or whatever the correct tribe designation is.  You can even list multiple ancestors on the same sticker.

The format is:

{{Descendant|id= [[Coursolle-3]] free form text}}

---

I must have also missed an earlier consensus about using the generic Descendant Sticker.  I suppose I could customize that sticker to say, "Allan Sheppard is a descendant of Dakota ancestors," but that seems awkward.  

Allan was Dakota, but his ancestry was mixed.

I really don't understand the resistance to "Allan Sheppard has Dakota ancestors."  Like on all profiles, if the fact has a source, keep it.  If it doesn't, question it, and if necessary, delete it.  I'm sure Wikitree has examples of incorrectly highlighted "Joe has Irish ancestors." or "Jane has French ancestors." that need correcting as well.

---

As I have stated before, I am not in favor of vague statements regarding anyone's ancestry, but especially for Native American ancestry. I don't really understand the value of a sticker that says "Mary has French ancestors," but I don't see it as culturally harmful.  I do see claiming Native American ancestry without documentation as  problematic and it's very common here on Wikitree and other genealogy sites.   No one is going to go through profiles and remove stickers that don't connect to a sourced fact; once it's on a profile it is presumed to be a fact.  The descendants sticker ensures that the statement is connected to an actual - hopefully documented - person.

---

And yet, when I asked for the NAP to include a statement on profiles indicating when a tribal name was inserted into a name field - wanting to ensure that tribal name wouldn't become a fact of an actual surname - I received a curt response.  I was told that if a source exists for the surname, then I'll know it is a surname, and if it doesn't, then it is a tribal name.  

No one is systematically going through all the profiles of any group ensuring each and every "fact" is sourced.  As we work on them, they get corrected.  It should be enough to ask writers to include a source for all facts - including stickers. A boxed caution can be put on the template page for Indian stickers.  It really should be that simple.

---

Ok I wanna pipe in here, SD I LOVE these Stickers! and I think they are PERFECT for a switch for 1st Nations, which are Sorely lacking any choice of  stickers, this would remove so many conflicts where someone basically calls a descendant "Metis" when the parent was clearly in documents listed with a specific Band/Tribe or Reserve.  It will make it easier for those searching to know what to search for..

---

Thank you, Arora.  I hope the Wikitree community will move toward finding ways to include the diverse communities and identities of American Indians/First Nations/Native Americans without the fear of or hostility toward an "undeserving" person being incorrectly identified as an Indian.

---

How is that not accomplished by the two existing stickers - the NA sticker which now appears as "(Person) was (tribe/nation name)" which completely avoids the need to choose among Native American/American Indian/indigenous/aboriginal or to specify  "tribe," "nation,"  "band," etc.  and the Descendants sticker which can easily be formatted to display as (Person) was a descendant of (ancestor) who was an enrolled member of xxx tribe"

---

And to highlight enrollment when writing the profile of a person (living or dead) who is/was enrolled???  What then?

As I understand it,

"Stickers are profile feature boxes used:

to honor a person or otherwise highlight something that's deemed to be very important about them, or

by members on their own account profiles to tell others about themselves."

While I'm sure the Descendant sticker can be customized in any number of useful ways, I believe the spirit of the Descendant sticker is to highlight either an honored or a well-known ancestor.  For example, "Descendant of Samuel Appleton, Sam Houston, and Benjamin Franklin."  Or Descendant of Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake.  Stickers are meant for highlighting something significant about - or in the life of - a person:  an occupation, a baby lost too soon, a veteran, or heritage.  Stickers are not meant for documenting our sources.  We do that with in-line references.  In the case of Allan Sheppard, I am not trying to highlight his mother.  We have fields and links for his mother.  I am trying to highlight the complexity of his heritage.

Answer 2

The following are strictly my personal opinions.

I see stickers as a quick way to highlight something important about a person without having to read through the bio.  I like simple ones without a lengthy template.

For the Native American Project, I suggest a choice of stickers.  I don't think there is any way to convey information in a single format that will make everyone happy.  I don't know how much work is involved in creating or maintaining a sticker, so I don't know if this is a realistic option.

Personally  I use "Native American" and "American Indian" interchangeably and I don't care which appears on a sticker.   I feel it's helpful to identify people that way (as Native American or American Indian) at the top of the bio so the casual searcher sees terms they are familiar with. For those who prefer one over the other  - or none - let's just have choices.   "Was Native American..,"  "Was American Indian...," or just "Was [tribe name].

It would be nice to be able to enter a dual tribe name to accomodate both the name preferred by the group and the common English version when they are very different, i.e. "Muskogee (Creek)."

I also don't think it's possible to come up in advance with a comprehensive list of bands/tribes/nations to satisfy everyone's sense of connection. Currently people just ask for a new identifier to be added and that seems to be working.  

 As I understand it the current sticker is meant to identify people who were part of a historical tribe/band/nation.  No one prior to the 20th century was "enrolled" with a tribe.  That's a government-imposed requirement for current tribes/nations/bands (along with the concept of blood quantum).  If there is a need for another sticker to identify citizens of current tribes, the names should match those on the list of Federally-recognized tribes from the BIA.  Although new groups are occasionally recognized, that list is pretty stable.

And finally, if I ran the world, the sticker would only be attached to people who are actually documented as tribal as opposed to a family story.

Comments

Kathie, I like your idea to include dual names such as Muskogee (Creek).  

I also agree that the names for modern communities/nations should come from the legal names of those nations (a list of federally and state-recognized tribes/nations).  

I disagree that "no one prior to the 20th century was 'enrolled' with a tribe."  White Earth Reservation was created in 1867, and the removals started immediately.  My own Ojibwe ancestors and extended family were removed from their village in eastern Minnesota and enrolled at White Earth, Leech Lake, Fond du Lac, and Lac Courte Oreilles.  My direct lineal ancestors arrived at White Earth in 1894 (I have documentation from the National Archives) and enrolled.  They are also documented on the annuity rolls after that date.  Many extended family members arrived earlier and were enrolled earlier.  Many American Indians/Native Americans take great pride in their tribal enrollment as members of a sovereign nation.

I agree with Jillaine who is "totally supportive of stickers and even the project box being radically simplified to refer to the tribe/nation name instead of using either phrase Native American or American Indian when the tribe or nation name is known."  Except with DNA, it is difficult for me to understand how one would be able to document the fact that a person has American Indian/Native American origins without knowing the tribe/nation.  It seems enough to simply state that tribe/nation.  I hope the stickers would allow for the name of the band of the tribe when that can be documented.  The dream catcher image or whatever image is settled upon would be enough of an identifier as a Native person without using a phrase.  Modern tribes/nations have their own flags, and those flags should be used just as the flags for other nations are used.

---

Just to clarify terminology, perhaps best explained through my family experience:

My grandfather was Cherokee.  His parents were Cherokee, he was born and raised in the Cherokee Nation.  There was no document that made him or his parents Cherokee, he was simply known and accepted by his tribe as such.  If you asked him if he was Indian he would have said "Yes."

In 1907, he was identified and enrolled by the Dawes Commission (and the Cherokee Nation) as a Cherokee person eligible for an allotment of land in Oklahoma and granted U.S. citizenship.  HIs name appears on one of the Final Dawes Rolls so he was an enrolled Cherokee.  Delaware and Shawnee people who had been forced to move into the Cherokee Nation after the Civil War were also enrolled as Cherokee.  Cherokee people who had married people from other tribes and were living in that tribes territory were enrolled by the Dawes Commission as Creek, Choctaw, and so on.

My father was neither a Cherokee by simple recognition or by enrollment.  He was not alive before the Cherokee government was dissolved by the United States in 1907 and was not alive in 1907 to be enrolled by the Dawes Commission.  He did not consider himself to be an Indian. Although he was eligible to register as a Cherokee citizen when the tribal govenment was reconsitituted in 1976, he chose not to do so.  He remained a Cherokee descendant.

I am registered as a citizen of Cherokee Nation. I also do not consider myself to be an Indian nor do I consider myself Welsh, German, Scots, or English although I have ancestors who were all of those.  Because my grandfather was enrolled on the correct Dawes Roll, I was eligible to register with Cherokee Nation and be recognized as a citizen. 

All Federally-acknowledged tribes have a "base roll,"  a list of people from whom a person must be descended in order to be recognized as a citizen.  Some current tribes use the words enrolled  and registered interchangeably when referring to their citizens.  Many tribes have requirements for citizenship in addition to descent from an enrolled person. 

Tribal identity could be very fluid in the historical tribes.  Most tribes willingly accepted and adopted people from other groups, and once accepted you simply were whatever tribe you were now accepted into. Only when the Federal government, money, and control of land entered into the mix did the need for a formal enrollment process arise.  

---

Thank you, Kathie - yes, I am well-familiar with the Dawes Act of 1887.  In Minnesota, we were affected by additional legislation - the Nelson Act of 1889 - "an act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota" (51st-1st-Ex.Doc.247; 25 Stat. 642).  The law intended to relocate all Ojibwe/Anishinaabe (Chippewa) people in Minnesota to the White Earth Indian Reservation and expropriate the vacated reservations for sale to European settlers.  While lands were allotted and excess lands stolen, not all Ojibwe left their lands or original reservations.  As you likely already know, in additional to a base rolls for each tribe/nation, the constitutions of different tribes/nations spelled out qualifications for enrollment and those qualifications sometimes used lineal descent but often used blood quantum.  Often, later generations fell off the enrollment rolls due to lack of blood quantum.  Those generations may still want to acknowledge their ancestors.  

For anyone new to annuity/census rolls to document their American Indian ancestors (not directed at you, Kathie), here is a good place to start:  National Archives, The Indian Census Rolls, 1885-1940 ( M595, 692 rolls) https://www.archives.gov/research/census/native-americans/1885-1940.html.  The rolls are also available on Ancestry.com.  Boarding school records are another way to document more recent generations of American Indians.  Older generations, of course, will not appear on annuity rolls  and school records.  For older generations, treaties, mixed-blood treaties and mixed-blood rolls, accounts of battles and local histories, investigations of corruption, and all the usual paper records - baptism and marriage records, wills, military papers, pension applications, and land records (especially allotments) - can all be useful.  For more recent generations, U.S. Census (especially the special populations on the 1900 and 1910 U.S. censuses may provide documentation.  There are many, many sources which could be used to document American Indian/Native American ancestry, and if nothing else, an ethnicity report from a DNA test could be used.

Answer 3

It's used as Native American or American Indian. Because Indian by its self could also mean from India. We have to diffurenate between the 2. We are Native American and or American Indian, I just say I am Cherokee. But I never say just Indian. BECAUSE you get that question which one from India or america.

Comments

So - with that said - Angi - is there any reason the three stickers I proposed wouldn't work?   Also:  https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Space:Naming_the_original_people_of_the_United_States&public=1

---

Any American born in America is a native American.  The term for those who can trace their ancestry to folks who arrived  on the continents before 1100 C.E. would be aboriginal Americans.  I am, of course, excluding the possible immigration of Phoenicians, which is either mythical or at least debatable.  BTW, some use the term 'indigenous' to distinguish from 'native' thinking that it less distasteful than 'aboriginal' but, the fallacy there is that it is synonymous with 'native.'   I myself cannot imagine why anyone would infer anything pejorative in 'aboriginal.'

---

"Native American" and "American Indian" are the commonly accepted generic terms for people whose ancestors lived in what are now the United States from the time prior to European contact to the current day.  Citizens of current tribes/nations have personal preferences, with many just using the term "Indian" when a generic term is needed, and most referring to themselves by their tribe/nation name. I don't consider myself either "Native American" or "American Indian" since most of my ancestors were immigrants from Europe and I have no preference for, or objection to, either term.  I am simply Cherokee, a citizen of Cherokee Nation.   Following lengthy discussion, and a realization that no term would find universal agreement or acceptance, the Native Americans project settled on that term. Native Americans Project (wikitree.com) People are free to use any non-pejorative terms they prefer in profile biographies and discussions.  

---

Thank you, Thom.  I know there are many who feel as you do who have not had their voices heard.

---

I understand the frustrations that have come in trying to name this project.  However, just because the outcome isn't what you may have wanted, doesn't mean you voice wasn't heard and taken into consideration.

---

Eowyn - My comment was to Thom, and I didn't interpret Thom's comment as referring solely to a project name.  I said nothing about my own voice. My own actual experience is that follow-through to a commitment made to me has not happened.  

In this discussion, I was hoping to get consensus on three stickers I proposed.  It would be good if I could hear your thoughts (agreement or disagreement) regarding the stickers and your reasons why you do or do not find the stickers useful.

---

What commitment was made to you, SD, that has not happened?