In the Great Plains area of Canada, around Winnipeg (Red River) the metis, strictly speaking, were originally the people of Scots and Cree mixture. Today, though, it is as you say. Kathie ----- Original Message ----- From: csmoke To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Memberships Rainbow, I do not know what new idears are up about Metis, but I think of them as originally the half blood mix of 1/2 French and 1/2 (Canada) Cree. They resided as a tribe or band in the north west U.S.A. , just south of the Canada border. A distinct people. There are rendezvous style gatherings up in the country mentioned and one of their characterizations are the beautiful finger woven wool yarn belt sashes and woven knee garters. I think I have a link to one of their event sites. There are some moderns in various parts of the U.S. , who have convinced themselves that .. "hey" I'm part Ind and part white european... I am Metis!! I do not care for a position on this (although already invited..) , but I would lump this outlook as new age for lack of better. Guess I'm brushing too broad. Richard B. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 2:49 PM Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Memberships > Since the subject is relating to many tribes...has anyone ever heard of or > is a member of the Metis Tribe listed as United Me'tis Nation of the US > Florida State Office. > > I am most curious. > > Thanking each of you who take the time to read this entry and/or respond. > > RainbowO > > > -----Original Message----- > From: JMSchohn <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 12:05 pm > Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Current Creek Membership > > > > I have served for many years as tribal historian and federal recognition > officer. So I can tell you that the ability to speak a unique language is > not a > requirement but can be used to fulfill the cultural continuity > requirement. > > I would also not assume that every state recognized tribe is a fraud and > that > the only "real" tribes are federal ones. My tribe is state recognized. We > are in > the process of status clarification with the federal government. I was > told by > one of the historians at the BIA that our people had one of the easiest > paths to > federal recognition of any of the remaining unrecognized tribes and that > it was > just a matter of putting the documents together. > > Does this mean every state tribe is legitimate? Of course not. But don't > paint > them all with one brush. There are many tribes, particularly in the > southeast, > that remain in tribal communities, that govern themselves through the > churches > they established when their traditional religion was outlawed. I > personally can > document my tribe from first contact. And I can demonstrate that ever > single > member is descended either from a soldier who fought in a company in the > Revolutionary War that was identified as a PeeDee Indian company or from > someone > who lived in the communities with them. Most of our people descend from > more > than one of those soldiers. I personally descend from four of them. > > When the Catawba had their federal recognition restored in the 1990s, > suddenly > federal Indians who had denounced them as not real Indians suddenly > accepted > them as such. And Chief Blue, to his credit, told them they were lap dogs > to the > BIA for treating the Catawba as something less than a tribe until the > federal > government said they were. > > We are not Indians at the whim of the U.S. government, and we are a tribe > whether they recognize us or not. We seek recognition because of the > benefits it > could bring to the quality of life of our people, not because it will make > us > Indian. The Creator already did that. > > ......stepping off my soapbox now..... > ... > > Michelle > > > > In a message dated 08/09/08 11:53:00 Eastern Standard Time, > [email protected] > writes: > Isn't that a little over assuming the state officials are much more > ignorant > than federal officials, or won't seek further information from creditable > individuals? Everything can be traced back to some kind of money in some > way....either having to give or to keep from taking....but present or > future > finances are always involved. This is an observation and opinion as > well. > TT > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "csmoke" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 12:58 AM > Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Current Creek Membership > > >> Leon, >> I do not know all the fed reqirement for being recognized, but do know >> that you can add speaking their unique language. And I think there is >> something about all these tests met and being in existence for 200 or >> more > years. >> There is a "native site" (commanchelodge..) that I think lists criteria >> for recognition, plus a listing of all the recognized tribes. >> >> So, I think you could go to the site I mentioned and see who is federally >> recognized. There are state (only) recognized groups (who may be >> legitimate in many ways and have a good heart...) , but I hear that the > problem with >> that is a " local" chief or whatever can blow a smoke at the state >> bureaucrats...throw in some genealogy/etc, and the state officials do not >> know nothing from nothing.... it looks ok, recognize them. Does not mean >> anything special.. my view. >> >> Richard B. >> > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- 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

Thanks Richard B and Kathie for your interesting response to my inquiry of the Metis nation. It is appreciated more than words can express. Have a blessed day. RainbowO -----Original Message----- From: Kathie M. Donahue <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 1:08 am Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Memberships In the Great Plains area of Canada, around Winnipeg (Red River) the metis, strictly speaking, were originally the people of Scots and Cree mixture. Today, though, it is as you say. Kathie ----- Original Message ----- From: csmoke To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Memberships Rainbow, I do not know what new idears are up about Metis, but I think of them as originally the half blood mix of 1/2 French and 1/2 (Canada) Cree. They resided as a tribe or band in the north west U.S.A. , just south of the Canada border. A distinct people. There are rendezvous style gatherings up in the country mentioned and one of their characterizations are the beautiful finger woven wool yarn belt sashes and woven knee garters. I think I have a link to one of their event sites. There are some moderns in various parts of the U.S. , who have convinced themselves that .. "hey" I'm part Ind and part white european... I am Metis!! I do not care for a position on this (although already invited..) , but I would lump this outlook as new age for lack of better. Guess I'm brushing too broad. Richard B. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 2:49 PM Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Memberships > Since the subject is relating to many tribes...has anyone ever heard of or > is a member of the Metis Tribe listed as United Me'tis Nation of the US > Florida State Office. > > I am most curious. > > Thanking each of you who take the time to read this entry and/or respond. > > RainbowO > > > -----Original Message----- > From: JMSchohn <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 12:05 pm > Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Current Creek Membership > > > > I have served for many years as tribal historian and federal reco gnition > officer. So I can tell you that the ability to speak a unique language is > not a > requirement but can be used to fulfill the cultural continuity > requirement. > > I would also not assume that every state recognized tribe is a fraud and > that > the only "real" tribes are federal ones. My tribe is state recognized. We > are in > the process of status clarification with the federal government. I was > told by > one of the historians at the BIA that our people had one of the easiest > paths to > federal recognition of any of the remaining unrecognized tribes and that > it was > just a matter of putting the documents together. > > Does this mean every state tribe is legitimate? Of course not. But don't > paint > them all with one brush. There are many tribes, particularly in the > southeast, > that remain in tribal communities, that govern themselves through the > churches > they established when their traditional religion was outlawed. I > personally can > document my tribe from first contact. And I can demonstrate that ever > single > member is descended either from a soldier who fought in a company in the > Revolutionary War that was identified as a PeeDee Indian company or from > someone > who lived in the communities with them. Most of our people descend from > more > than one of those soldiers. I personally descend from four of them. > > When the Catawba had their federal recognition restored in the 1990s, > suddenly > federal Indians who had denounced them as not real Indians suddenly > accepted > them as such. And Chief Blue, to his credit, told them they were lap dogs > to the > BIA for treating the Catawba as something less than a tribe until the > federal > government said they were. > > We are not Indians at the whim of the U.S. government, and we are a tribe > whether they recognize us or not. We seek recognition because of the > benefits it > could bring to the quality of life of our people, not because it will make > us > Indian. The Creator already did that. > > ......stepping off my soapbox now..... > ... > > Michelle > > > > In a message dated 08/09/08 11:53:00 Eastern Standard Time, > [email protected] > writes: > Isn't that a little over assuming the state officials are much more > ignorant > than federal officials, or won't seek further information from creditable > individuals? Everything can be traced back to some kind of money in some > way....either having to give or to keep from taking....but present or > future > finances are always involved. This is an observation and opinion as > well. > TT > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "csmoke" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 12:58 AM > Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Current Creek Membership > > >> Leon, >> I do not know all the fed reqirement for being recognized, but do know >> that you can add speaking their unique language. And I think there is >> something about all these tests met and being in existence for 200 or >> more > years. >> There is a "native site" (commanchelodge..) that I think lists criteria >> for recognition, plus a listing of all the recognized tribes. >> >> So, I think you could go to the site I mentioned and see who is federally >> recognized. There are state (only) recognized groups (who may be >> legitimate in many ways and have a good heart...) , but I hear that the > problem with >> that is a " local" chief or whatever can blow a smoke at the state >> bureaucrats...throw in some genealogy/etc, and the state officials do not >> know nothing from nothing.... it looks ok, recognize them. Does not mean >> anything special.. my view. >> >> Richard B. >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] web.com > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body > of > the message > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------- 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

Guess I got my locations and people mixed up. Very early there were considerable French (fur trapping) in the north who produced mixed bloods (Cree and others). Early French exited en masse to state Louisana . Thanks. Richard B. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathie M. Donahue" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Memberships > In the Great Plains area of Canada, around Winnipeg (Red River) the metis, > strictly speaking, were originally the people of Scots and Cree mixture. > > Today, though, it is as you say. > > Kathie > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: csmoke > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 4:35 PM > Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Memberships > > > Rainbow, > I do not know what new idears are up about Metis, but I think of them as > originally the half blood mix of 1/2 French and 1/2 (Canada) Cree. They > resided as a tribe or band in the north west U.S.A. , just south of the > Canada border. A distinct people. > > There are rendezvous style gatherings up in the country mentioned and one > of > their characterizations are the beautiful finger woven wool yarn belt > sashes > and woven knee garters. I think I have a link to one of their event > sites. > > There are some moderns in various parts of the U.S. , who have convinced > themselves that .. "hey" I'm part Ind and part white european... I am > Metis!! I do not care for a position on this (although already > invited..) > , but I would lump this outlook as new age for lack of better. Guess I'm > brushing too broad. > > Richard B. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 2:49 PM > Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Memberships > > > > Since the subject is relating to many tribes...has anyone ever heard of > or > > is a member of the Metis Tribe listed as United Me'tis Nation of the US > > Florida State Office. > > > > I am most curious. > > > > Thanking each of you who take the time to read this entry and/or > respond. > > > > RainbowO > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: JMSchohn <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 12:05 pm > > Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Current Creek Membership > > > > > > > > I have served for many years as tribal historian and federal > recognition > > officer. So I can tell you that the ability to speak a unique language > is > > not a > > requirement but can be used to fulfill the cultural continuity > > requirement. > > > > I would also not assume that every state recognized tribe is a fraud > and > > that > > the only "real" tribes are federal ones. My tribe is state recognized. > We > > are in > > the process of status clarification with the federal government. I was > > told by > > one of the historians at the BIA that our people had one of the easiest > > paths to > > federal recognition of any of the remaining unrecognized tribes and > that > > it was > > just a matter of putting the documents together. > > > > Does this mean every state tribe is legitimate? Of course not. But > don't > > paint > > them all with one brush. There are many tribes, particularly in the > > southeast, > > that remain in tribal communities, that govern themselves through the > > churches > > they established when their traditional religion was outlawed. I > > personally can > > document my tribe from first contact. And I can demonstrate that ever > > single > > member is descended either from a soldier who fought in a company in > the > > Revolutionary War that was identified as a PeeDee Indian company or > from > > someone > > who lived in the communities with them. Most of our people descend from > > more > > than one of those soldiers. I personally descend from four of them. > > > > When the Catawba had their federal recognition restored in the 1990s, > > suddenly > > federal Indians who had denounced them as not real Indians suddenly > > accepted > > them as such. And Chief Blue, to his credit, told them they were lap > dogs > > to the > > BIA for treating the Catawba as something less than a tribe until the > > federal > > government said they were. > > > > We are not Indians at the whim of the U.S. government, and we are a > tribe > > whether they recognize us or not. We seek recognition because of the > > benefits it > > could bring to the quality of life of our people, not because it will > make > > us > > Indian. The Creator already did that. > > > > ......stepping off my soapbox now..... > > ... > > > > Michelle > > > > > > > > In a message dated 08/09/08 11:53:00 Eastern Standard Time, > > [email protected] > > writes: > > Isn't that a little over assuming the state officials are much more > > ignorant > > than federal officials, or won't seek further information from > creditable > > individuals? Everything can be traced back to some kind of money in > some > > way....either having to give or to keep from taking....but present or > > future > > finances are always involved. This is an observation and opinion as > > well. > > TT > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "csmoke" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 12:58 AM > > Subject: Re: [CREEK-SOUTHEAST] The Irony of Current Creek Membership > > > > > >> Leon, > >> I do not know all the fed reqirement for being recognized, but do know > >> that you can add speaking their unique language. And I think there is > >> something about all these tests met and being in existence for 200 or > >> more > > years. > >> There is a "native site" (commanchelodge..) that I think lists > criteria > >> for recognition, plus a listing of all the recognized tribes. > >> > >> So, I think you could go to the site I mentioned and see who is > federally > >> recognized. There are state (only) recognized groups (who may be > >> legitimate in many ways and have a good heart...) , but I hear that > the > > problem with > >> that is a " local" chief or whatever can blow a smoke at the state > >> bureaucrats...throw in some genealogy/etc, and the state officials do > not > >> know nothing from nothing.... it looks ok, recognize them. Does not > mean > >> anything special.. my view. > >> > >> Richard B. > >> > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > >

The Metis Genealogical Society of Spokane, WA, was where I learned genealogy, first. Members of that group, in the 1970's and 1980's were descended from Flandreau Sioux, Plains Cree, Turtle Mountain Chippewa and Salish-speaking tribes of WA, ID, and MT. Tribes, today, with a broadly-interpreted metis background include those of the Great Lakes, the Dakotas, MT, ID, WA, OR, and some just south of those northern tier states. The word, metis (feminine = metisse) is French for mixed blood. The Red River (Winnipeg) metis were strictly considered, at one time, to be, mixed Scots and Cree. Sources of genealogical information about these people can be found in many Quebec genealogical dictionaries (Tanguay, Jette, Drouin [now online at ancestry.com]) and some Quebec marriage repertoires (lists) such as Rivest and Loiselle. Gail Morin, who lives just north of me near Coulee Dam, WA, is the author of a significant group of books and CD's published by Quentin Publications on the metis of the plains. The Red River, Manitoba, censuses 1830-1870 are full of metis families. Interesting reading about the metis on the subject of Louis Riel is an eye-opener to political standing of these great people. Sprague and Frye's GENEALOGIES OF THE FIRST METIS NATION mix church and census records of the Red River era in a great reference on the early families. The Half-breed Scrip records of Canada and the Great Lakes lend even more detail to the picture. One of the most recent metis groups in the US to gain a reservation were the Rocky Boy. They were the descendants of the Landless Chippewa of Montana who occupied a hill in Helena, MT, for many years, poor and desititute, living in shanties and impossible conditions. The foregoing is sketchy, but you can get the general idea. The Acadian people, many of whom migrated from Nova Scotia (formerly Acadia) to Louisiana are another story, although Acadians may be found all over the world, even in France. There were significant groups along the east coast of the US; all up and down the Mississippi; in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba and other places. Many were mixed blood before they ever left Acadia. The Acadian genealogy is almost a known-quantity. Their origin in Acadia and exit time is fairly certain which makes for a straight-forward type of research. There are Acadian Genealogical Societies and experts, today, who can help show the way. A recent book by Stephen White ought to be looked at in one's Acadian research efforts. Well, that's the surface of it and maybe there's enough there to help. There's a possibility some of the Acadian would be found among the Choctaw and Chickasaw and certainly any of the tribes of LA (now, Cajuns, the local corruption of Acadian). The catholics weren't allowed up into the heartland of Alabama. Had the Jesuits made it up there, early (the 1700's), I think we would have some dy-no-mite records to follow in untangling the mysteries among the Creeks. But alas, they were kept away. Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/relations/ is a wonderful history and insight into the missionary efforts of these great priests who trod (often barefoot) among the Indians and early communities of the Americas. Have a look. Without their zeal, I wouldn't have the name of my earliest Indian grandmother, Charlotte, an Okanogan, born, probably, in the Methow Valley of WA in the first decade of the 19th century. In researching French-sounding surnames, don't forget the Huguenots. Those that took over Manakin-town near Richmond, VA, in 1700, displaced and absorbed many Saponi families, according the Dr. Peter Houck, author of INDIAN ISLAND IN AMHERST VIRGINIA. Many of those families pushed west or took ship to Louisiana and Texas in the early days. >From several genealogies I've studied, but not been able to actually prove Indian blood in, I've thought there were significant numbers of mixed bloods among the Austin colonists of Texas. These were not generally French-originated families but they were families that were found early among the first settlers of KY, OH, and IN, among many other states, who originated in the Mid-Atlantic states, VA and the Carolinas. I am being very general, here, and intending only to give clues to things. If you have questions of corrections, that will be good. I have not dealt with several of these subjects in any great depth and not for many years, as most of my work has been among the Five Civilized Tribes. But I love to work on the French lineages of the Indian people because the Jesuits were hard at work with them, early, and provide wonderful records to their histories. If you cut your teeth on Quebec and Jesuit records, as a greenie, as I did, you thought, at the outset, "Hey, THIS is easy!" Well, it was, relatively speaking. Reality, however, soon dawned. Not every ancestor is Catholic and not every Catholic was ministered to by a Jesuit....and outside of Quebec, where churches had to keep records in duplicate and triplicate, even Catholic records were hard to find in a direct line from early times forward.