When researching the Cherokee, one must take all information and then follow up till there is no where else to go. But I would take anything government says with a grain of salt. Just use that information as a set of clues. Government says that "if it is not in writing, It never was so." However, memorising around the camp fire is a long Native tradition. It was part of the learning process, before the Cherokee had to hide. Then genealogy was hidden.( to protect the family) BARB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alli :)" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:40 AM Subject: Re: [CherokeeGene] genealogy > I have always taken information given to me with a grain of salt....not > because i didn't believe that the person could be true. But because, as > you > said, its just their word. No back up. > > My dad grew up knowing he had Cherokee blood in him. He thought/assumed > that > it was his grandma who was the full blood or at least 1/2, mainly because > of > her facial appearance. But also because he went to Tahlequah with her by > train to fill out her application for the Eastern Band of Cherokee. She > was > suppose to go back the next day to answer some more questions, but she > didn't have the money for a hotel room or food for her let alone both of > them. Now this is his account of this day. But.....somewhere there's a > record of her doing this. I just haven't found it yet. :) > > But when I found the applications for his great grandma (my dbl great), he > wanted to argue because he thought it was his grandma (my great) until i > showed him what i found. > > The other story is that my great grandma's brother Sam found their > connection & proved it & he was able to get their land. I have no where to > look for later proof, but it wasn't with their applications that they did > in > 1907. So I told my dad that just because he said or that his grandma > said...won't work when contacting the CNO, I have to "show" proof LOL > > I had to laugh when you mentioned the Journal in book form as proof. I > have > a copy of my great grandpa's divorce record....its a "journal" of his > court > record of asking for a divorce through a court. Its hand written. I told > family on this side of the tree & they wanted to argue because no one knew > that our great grandpa was married or divorced prior to our great grandma. > I > said he also had 2 kids prior & our uncle from the second marriage had > been > in touch with them......ohhhhhhh talk about a skeleton filled closet :) > > Alli ;0) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joyce Gaston Reece" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 6:15 AM > Subject: Re: [CherokeeGene] genealogy > > > >I once knew a doctor's assistant who was Cherokee and a member of the > > Keetowah Band. I once asked her about a written or oral history of the > > Cherokee Indian. Her simple statement was that there wasn't one. > > Only > > an > > oral history. Then I'm reminded of the 1950's tv show with a man named > > Art > > Linkletter. It was an earlier version of today's 'talk show'. At the > > beginning of one show he went to someone in the first row of the > > audience > > and gave them a phrase to pass on to a person in the next row then wrote > > down the phrase. Throughout the show the phrase was passed from one > > person > > to another until it got to the back row of seats. At the end of the > > show > > Mr. Linkletter asked the person to tell what he'd been told. Not > > suprisingly, the phrase he was told then was nothing like the phrase > > that > > he'd begun with. > > > > In genealogical circles, oral history is never considered documentation > > unless there's other evidence to back it up. So, can we accept Cherokee > > elder's stories as genealogical family history? > > > > BOOKS? Books, according to the highest genealogical standards, are > > always > > considered SECONDARY resources. It doesn't matters how many books one > > reads > > if the books aren't historically accurate, with citations, resources > > then > > it > > is just someone's fictional tale. I've seen many books that resourced a > > dozen other books....not one primary resource in the lot. These are not > > acceptable genealogical proof. Although there are exceptions to > > this....in > > my opinion. Journal transcriptions in book form, transcriptions of > > deeds > > or > > other primary resources are acceptable. The journals of Needham & > > Fallam, > > Lawson & Gist, for instance. > > > > So, when we read someone else's opinion or listen to someone's stories > > about > > a history do we accept these in blind faith? Or do we act like good > > researchers and verify the sources, check the facts? The only solid > > documentation we have in most cases of Indian and white relationships in > > colonial times are the records kept by the whites. Do we take these > > with > > grains of salt...sure we do! > > > > This and all these lists are for genealogy not mythology. > > > > > > > > > > Joyce Gaston Reece > > > =====*NOTICE THIS*===== > this is a generic list; and not topic specific because certain chatting > is required to do genealogy; and sort fact from fiction. > > Rude people will be moderated asap! > List archive > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=cherokeegene > Dual admin. > Dan and Joyce > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Barb, This needs to be switched to the Culture list (Cherokee-L) as per requested by Dan......so if there's any other non-research specific messages (if an answer is required) I will respond on that list, so if your not on that group, you will probably miss them. Now.... as for your message........ Whether I receive information from the "government" or from an individual, I take with a grain of salt. Neither is the end all beat all source. The lady that had found my 4th great grandma on a census record told me that based on her research of my line, that the lady she found listed on the census was Cherokee(it stated on the census record as such) was a known researcher for the Cherokee Nation of Okla., researched/volunteered at the LDS Family History Center in her area, is a Cherokee Descendent herself (directly & off shoot...meaning aunts/uncles married Cherokee's too) very good at what she did. But.......i still don't have that information. I have been told by others who have researched the same line that was told by another well known researcher & Cherokee that my family WAS Cherokee. Well.........just because a few agree that we are, but there's no "proof" as someone who is the know all of Cherokee (& I don't mean that disrespectfully)..is that good enough for you as a supposed descendent of Cherokee people? Is that going to be good enough for either the CNO or EBofC ? No.....they want the government documents to prove that their people, really are their fellow Cherokee family. So.........to go along with your quote "Government says that "if it is not in writing, it never was so." The Cherokee Tribes are saying the EXACT same thing. If our ancestors were not on the Dawes, Miller, or Baker Roll revised.....then we are not Cherokee. This has been said by 100's of already rolled Cherokee. Yes, the Cherokee's told story's, passed family tradition & story's, etc.but guess what.......they, too, are following the way of the Government......they too want family connection in writing, just like the wicked old white man's government. Alli :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "BARBARA GORDON-LANTTO" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:50 PM Subject: Re: [CherokeeGene] genealogy > When researching the Cherokee, one must take all information and then > follow up till there is no where else to go. > But I would take anything government says with a grain of salt. Just use > that information as a set of clues. > > Government says that "if it is not in writing, It never was so." > However, memorising around the camp fire is a long Native tradition. It > was part of the learning process, before the Cherokee had to hide. Then > genealogy was hidden.( to protect the family) > > BARB