Talk:Lumbee/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

unsubstantiated critique of Demarce and Heinegg

Right now, the passage in question is original research. It’s also POV, e.g.: “thorough analysis”, “more often than not”, “can not be traced with certainty.” Heinegg and Demarce are well-respected and well-published genealogists. This passage does not even come close to meeting WP standards of verifiability.Verklempt 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not question the genealogical evidence presented by Demarce and Heinegg, it is their personalized interpretations of their research that they so carelessly insert all throughout the factual information that I question. This particular work is riddled with unsubstantiated heavily personalized and biased misleading statements that if not read under close scrutiny can easily be misconstrued to be facts themselves. Their credentials will not suffice as evidence that everything they say is true, in fact under a thorough critique of their work it will be seen that a large portion of what they present is pure speculation!

Although they have proven that some families (roughly a third) among Robeson County Indians at least “IN PART” originated from Virginia, for a vast majority such claims are pure “UNPROVEN SPECULATION.” Take the Locklear family (the biggest Indian family in Robeson County to date) for example. In Heinegg and Demarce’s research they trace all the Robeson County Locklears back to a Robert Locklear who owned land on the Roanoke River in the part of Edgecombe County that would later become Halifax County North Carolina. They assumed that he “MAY” be descended from a Frenchman by the name of Jacob Lockeleer in Virginia, but the verifiable trail for this family ends at Robert; yet Heinegg and Demarce blatantly state, in regards to Mary Normant claiming that a Betty Locklear was a half breed Tuscarora, that “it is more likely that they (the ancestors of the Locklears in Robeson) were already a mixture of African, European, and perhaps Native American when they came to North Carolina.” As in “THEY CAN NOT PROVE THAT THIS FAMILY CAME FROM VIRGINIA YET THEY STATE THAT THEY DID!”

This is “BY FAR” not the only time that such speculative assumptions have been presented as fact here, Heinegg and Demarce’s credentials are worthless! My statements were not original research; all I did was offer an accurate critique of well published blindly accepted propagandized POV garbage!Bobby Hurt 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Much of your recent editing does not meet the published WP standards and policies, and will have to go.Verklempt 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct to a certain extent; after all I am new to WP. I will definitely make an effort in the future to make sure that what edits I make properly reflect the actual (as in not your personalized interpretations of them) WP standards. On the same note, it appears that you have been here for a long time and should therefore be very familiar with the policies in place here. Therefore, you should have known better (and probably did) than to insert so many of your personal beliefs into this article! For example:

1.)"families with the same surnames as Lumbees"--without checking to see if any of the individuals mentioned could actually be tied to Robeson Indians, such a statement was completely uncalled for as well as inaccurate, 2.) Inferring that it is impossible for there to be a large portion of Indian blood represented within Robeson County Indians when it most definitely is. Such a statement is your own “UNPROVEN PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW, that absolutely does not belong in a respectable article,” 3.) “in which they described non-white residents” of Robeson as being a free colored population that migrated originally from the districts round-about the Roanoke and Neuse Rivers--The only “FREE-colored” people who came to Robeson County were Lumbee ancestors, there were other “non-whites” who were slaves or slaves that had been set free, but they were not free-colored when they got here. Your contribution is a completely inaccurate unnecessary personalized statement that has no business being on a professionally written public page, and 4.) “By 1802, the northern Tuscarora leaders felt that the emigration was complete, and that while some of their relatives had stayed behind, those people had intermarried with other races and ethnicities and were no longer tribal members.”--and this statement can be referenced how? The actual historic record indicates that there are roughly at least 1000 (and this is extremely conservative estimate) unaccounted for Tuscarora.

I am also curious to know how it is a violation to expose WP readers to such common knowledge as was illustrated by Charles F Pierce (Supervisor of Indian Schools for the Department of Interior) in 1912 when he stated (in a public federal government document) that “One would readily class a large majority of [the Lumbee] as being at least three-fourths Indian?” Who are you to dictate that Heinegg and Demarce’s highly opinionated work is the only thing that carries any weight? There is a lot of evidence that contradicts what Heinegg and Demarce theorize (some of it being from within their own heavily censored highly incomplete twisted propagandized research); therefore, what they claim is not a proven "FACT." You are entitled to believe what this one source claims if you wish (and I will admit that just like most other things, there is “SOME” truth to what they say), but you have no right to present it as being undisputable fact within this article (because their claims are heavily disputed).

From reading over your earlier replies on this talk page it is easy to see that you have continuously attempted to break down, scrutinize, and completely disregard and leave out every piece of evidence (a majority of which is located in verifiable sources) showing any Indian heritage within Robeson County; yet you won’t allow the same scrutiny to fall upon the untouchable Heinegg and Demarce work to which you so tightly cling. Your actions are extremely hypocritical Sir and you have no right to sensor a public resource in such a personalized way (i.e. POV)! The narrow minded semantic bigotry you have portrayed thus far on this talk page (and other places) is ridiculous! It is ludicrous that those editors above you have allowed you to play God on this website for as long as they have!

FYI: If you would have actually read the work that you so blindly put your faith in you would have know that according to “HEINEGG and DEMARCE”, Isaac Hammond the second (whose wife upon his death in 1822 filed a pension in 1849 stating that both his parents were Mulattoes or Mustees having no African blood in them) was the son of an Isaac Hammond, brother of Ann Hammond who was acknowledged in Bertie County court in February 1739 that she had two bastard children, race not mentioned, while indentured to John Pratt, the keeper of the ferry across the Roanoke River at Gideon Gibson’s landing

“HEINEGG and DEMARCE” also state that this same Ann Hammond (who would essentially also be a Mullato or Mustees with no African blood in her as well) was also the mother of John and Horatio Hammond (their father is unknown) who moved to Robeson County from Bertie County (John in 1768 and Horatio in 1784) and produced 16 children, founding the entire Hammonds family in Robeson County.

I appeal to the legitimate editors on this site to recognize the covert discrimination (i.e. Unequal and harmful treatment that is hidden, purposeful, and often maliciously motivated and stems from conscious attempts to ensure failure) that this anonymous individual is inflicting on your site, and put an end to it!Bobby Hurt 12:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of your complaints are based on an incomplete familiarity with the relevant sources. Since original research is disallowed on WP, it's pointless to debate some of this stuff. For now, suffice to say that positive assertions need to be substantiated. I'll try to clean this up when I have more time.Verklempt 03:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! You can’t be serious! Actually my friend I have spent over 300 hours analyzing and reading over the research they did in reference to Robeson County families (I had a copy of it sitting in front of me when I wrote the information above). Their work can be easily accessed on the net at the site Heinegg and Demarce so ingeniously (they are so good at what they do) labeled (www.freeafricanamericans.com) if you should ever care to check over anything I just said. Let me remind you of some things that “YOU” stated in the discussions above:

1.) However, there is basically no surviving evidence of Indian identity among the Lumbee ancestors prior to 1885. This makes it a total leap of faith to assume that they had one. Verklempt 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

2.) “Do you have any evidence of problems with DeMarce's published research? I've never seen anyone demonstrate any serous errors or bias in her work. Or do you just dislike that she documents the Lumbee's African side of their ancestry?Verklempt 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC) “

3.) You still haven't specified your disagreement with DeMarce's research. I'm sensing a vague whiff of conspiracy theory about her having worked for the feds, but nothing concrete. I would also point out that your resort to ad hominem is becoming habitual, and that's quite revealing.Verklempt 00:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that “YOU” in fact initiated this debate my friend! Isn’t “debate and discussion” what this “TALK PAGE” is here for? You certainly seemed to think so in the past! Why the sudden change of heart now? You were all about spurting off at the mouth and telling people who they are and aren’t earlier, yet you suddenly want the discussion to end when one of them calls your bluff! Is it just me or is anyone else getting a vague whiff of the hypocrisy taking place here? Your actions are becoming so habitual and that’s quite revealing!Bobby Hurt 12:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

At any rate the refs are screwed up and need to be fixed. I'd do it but I'm afraid I don't know the material well enough to sort out what goes where.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

March 7 changes

Could someone vet the changes and additions added to the article today? The info looks mostly good, but it looks like the citations are screwed up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Page Protected

The page is now protected, effectively forcing a truce in the edit war. I'd like to see us have a civil, reasoned discussion about the disputed material. Who wants to start? Henrymrx (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the repeated blanking by the blocked accounts, what is being taken out is anything mentioning possible African ancestry.Verklempt (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Henrymrx, calming down the edit wars. I think such a contentious subject as this one would warrant a stepping back and taking a deep breath from everyone involved!

To Verklempt: What do you mean by "African?" There is plenty of evidence that Lumbee have ancestry from Moors/Turks/others from that area of the world. For example, Heather Locklear's middle name is Deen, an Arabic word essentially meaning "way of life," albeit far more encompassing. As with most people in this country, USAmerica, you probably mean SSWestAfrican. I believe there is both "Moorish" and SSWAfrican as well. Please do not try and find Negroid ancestry in everything, that is one reason why established tribes are kicking out Freedmen. I think that it is a poor/cruel move on their part, but when you have scum such as Outkast, five percenters by the way, and their mockery of Indians for the delight of others, who can blame the tribes for kicking the Freedmen out? Blacks move everywhere and then claim they started something they had no part of in the beginning. I have all kinds of ancestry in me, and I have many distant cousins passing as black because they have dark(er) skin. If you check the names in Melungeon lists for example, you will find many surnames that are also common among those in that very area of those that migrate to cities and pass as full black. Williams is one, there are many of them in the Carolinas. I think the freedmen ought to stay in the tribes, perhaps if the Union Army hadn't have pulled out of the South too early and abandoned Reconstructiom turning the South over to the "Redeemers," then we wouldn't be in this mess now. They did, and we are still paying for it. I think the tribes ought to tell the Feds to screw off regarding quantum and let the freedmen stay, but that's just me. Yes, the gaming money is a driving factor, although the claiming of everything with some black influence as black is as well.

Question to anyone: Above, the Holland Land Company was mentioned. Is there any connection with Holland Island in the Chesapeake Bay? My GGF William T. Bennett dissembled houses there and moved them to Cambridge Maryland, because of the sinking of the island of course. He pretty much built up the entire West End of town there. Interestingly enough, I have some letters from the Holland Island Preservation Society run by a Mr. White who had ancestors on the island as well. I also have relatives by that name whom I visited many years ago in what is now North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Mr. White was in coorespondence with both my mother and her mother, both deceased. The "Day" in my name comes from my father's father, who interestingly enough had ancestors in NC. Interestingly enough, my father's mother was a Mitchell. Enough of me for now, perhaps I can jumpstart this page.

I don't think this page is possible without personal anecdotes, especially since the topic is still in its growth stages.JBDay (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1886 Blood Committee (School)

Was there any documentation as to the criteria the committee used to determine what children were eligible for the school(s) established for Indians in NC? Did they use family genealogies?--Parkwells (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no documentation, only oral history. The committee members were pretty much all illiterate at this time. The only documentation of the committees' functioning during this time period is a single court case. There, the committee objected to admitting the children of a freedman who'd married the sister of one of the blood committee members. The committees appear to have gone purely by community reputation pirmarily, and secondarily by racial appearance.Verklempt (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But? If the people had an oral history in 1886 as being Indian (or mostly Indian) spanning back for generations, wouldn't that mean that.............could it be.............perhaps maybe....... folks knew that they were Indian despite the fact that "OTHER PEOPLE" labeled them otherwise? Bobby Hurt (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Impact of recognition as tribal nation by Federal government

An editor has added a statement in the lead/lede about potential impact of recognition. This is not really covered by the article, and may deserve a separate article. This one is about the Lumbee group itself.--Parkwells (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about the very last sentence in the lede? I agree that it should come out, since it is pure speculation. As such, it does not deserve a separate article either.Verklempt (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Please stop adding material about escaped slaves. That is not the main point - the point is that working class white women and African men had relationships and children together. Heinegg's point and documentation is not about mostly escaped slaves. It is that in the early days of VA, white women, servants or free, chose African men as partners. Sometimes they were indentured servants who became free, as did Europeans; sometimes they were slave. The children were free because the mothers were free, and they were African Americans or people of color free in colonial VA.--Parkwells (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The speculation that Lumbees started identifying as Indians in the late 1880s because of KKK violence during Reconstruction must be sourced. There were probably many reasons, but it's not clear that this is one. They had identified as Indians before, but not under the Lumbee name. For one thing, the KKK was most active up to 1870-71. In the mid-1870s in the Deep South and South Carolina, white paramilitary groups such as the White League and Red Shirts unleashed violence against Republicans and freedmen, especially at election time, to turn Republicans out and suppress black voting. I don't know if the Red Shirts were an issue in Robeson Co. or what the voter registration and turnout rate had been there, or what was happening by the 1880s. --Parkwells (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Red Shirt activity in Robeson Co., although this can't be as early as you are interested in, since my grandfather was only born in '81;

http://ncmuseumofhistory.org/workshops/civilrights1/oral_pol.html David F Lowry (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; that's an interesting perspective about the turns in history. --Parkwells (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Findings of Heinegg on Free African Americans

Please stop changing this to something that Heinegg did not state. If an editor has another source for "skeptics about Native American origins, use that". Heinegg does not say he was skeptical; he simply lays out the documentation. He did not write that Lumbee were chiefly of African ancestry; rather he pointedly stated that 80 percent of cthe free people of color in NC in censuses from 1790-1810 (which would have included Lumbee ancestors) were descended from African Americans (mixed-race) free in VA during the colonial period. Most of those families were started from the children of relationships of white women with African or African American men, and their multiracial children. Many of these families moved together and settled in groups, creating frontier communities in VA and NC, along with European migrants/neighbors.--Parkwells (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is true then certain folks need to stop saying that Heinegg theorized that "LUMBEES/TUSCARORAS" come from these mixed race unions in this article, because to do so is false (or POV). So unless someone can cite exactly where Heinegg says this (as in specifically states that Lumbee/Tuscarora in Robeson are primarily of African and European origin from Virginia); I move that his work be completely removed as a source from this page.

Nevermind how certain editors might interpret his research to read (after all that would be original research wouldn't it; which is definately something Wikipedia doesn't endorse right?) Bobby Hurt (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Heinegg has indeed commented on Lumbee origins, and traced them to mixed-race unions. Read Heinegg's "Introduction". It's all there. Also look at his Lowrie family chapter.Verklempt (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He notes 35 families by name in the 1768-1770 tax lists (only one was identified as Indian), and 24 families by name in the 1790-1800 census that he traces back to having some Negro or mulatto ancestry in VA or NC. These are surnames of many people identified as Lumbee. I noted more specifics. --Parkwells (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I comment further I would appreciate it if you (Parkwells) could give me a direct strait forward answer to the following question: Did Heinegg or did he not write that the Lumbee ancestors were chiefly of African American (or mixed European and African American) ancestry? (I'd have asked Verklempt as well but he has allready given a strait forward definitive answer, what's your position?)Bobby Hurt (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not about my opinion. You should read Heinegg yourself, as Verklempt pointed out and I have referenced, the material is online. What I have done is try to represent what he states in his book. I don't know how many of the surnames traditionally associated with Lumbee are among those he lists - many, it appears from other reading. He identified these surnames as having origins in individuals of multiracial origin, mostly European and African. --Parkwells (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is about your opinion here (in this discussion that we are having). In your (Parkwells) first statement you said that Heinegg did not write that Lumbees are chiefly of African ancestry. Yet in the same discussion your arguing that he listed most (as 24 and definately 35 families would have been most) Lumbee families in the 1760-1800 census as being descended from African Americans. I'm confused here, because your statements from one response to the next do not paint the same picture, hence the reason why I asked you that question (just fishing for a strait forward position, it's much easier to address that way, judging by your response it appears that a strait forward discussion is not what you looking for though). Personally I am well aware (and was well aware before I asked you that question) of the fact that Heinegg specifically targets Robco people in his work (and while we're on the subject I would like to thank Verklempt for helping to point this out for me, I knew youd pop up if somebody tried to actually remove your presious Heinegg crap, well thanks anyway!).

My point being that he does specifically try to target and discredit (he even repeatedly goes out of his way to do so) the fact that Robeson county people are primarily of Indian origin despite the fact that his work is "SUPPOSED" to (as you are trying to portray it) be a non-biased overview of free African Americans in general with no particular agenda in mind. Bottom line: nobody is changing this to something that Heinegg did not state, people are just exposing him for what he was really trying to do!Bobby Hurt (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a particular view. What I meant was that Heinegg cited records that showed free people of color were of mostly European and African American descent. That is not my opinion; that is what is in his book - his findings. To me, it looked as if Heinegg started in VA with court, tax, deed, wills and land records and tried to understand how families of free people of color were formed in the colonial period. He found many that went back to the 17th and 18th centuries. Then he continued to use records to trace descendants of those families and see where they went. I certainly do not think he was targeting any group or any county since he researched many families. He quoted extensively from the original records in his book - for instance, he noted that Tom Britt was listed as Indian in a mid-1700s tax list for Bladen County, NC. (I've seen in some of the comments on this article that people say no one was listed as Indian in early NC records, but that man was.) Heinegg's findings on ancestry of Melungeons have been confirmed so far by the limited results in the Melungeon DNA Project which Jack Goins is coordinating. Perhaps some Lumbee families will find DNA analysis interesting as well.--Parkwells (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally (and I'm going off of what he says on his website here, which I would assume is the same as in his book) I do not agree with the following statement being placed in this article: "In his book he identified 35 families by name listed on the 1768-1770 tax lists for Bladen County, from which Robeson County was formed. Except for Tom Britt, who was listed as Indian, all the others were listed as mulatto. Similarly, Heinegg listed 24 "other free" families by name in Robeson County from the 1790-1800 censuses. In his book he had traced each back to persons referred to as "Negro" or "mulatto" in Virginia or North Carolina"

I've made the language in the lead more general. I thought before that you objected to the generalization.--Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To continue further with what Verklempt mentioned about the Lowrie page; Heinegg blatantly argues against the fact that the Lowries were descendants from a white man who married a half breed Tuscarora arguing that it is impossible because no records were found to indicate this (he also attacked the fact that Kerseys, Cumbos and Locklears were as well despite the fact that that had nothing to do with the Lowrie history itself, he went out of his way here and stepped beyond the bounds of unbiased presentation). The problem here is that he also has no documentation to prove otherwise, therefore making Mary Norments "the Lowrie history" the only existing evidence found on this family's geneology. I don't understand how the statement "Heinegg traced EACH back to persons refered to as Negro or Mulatto in NC or VA" can properly be used here.

It is also true that Heinegg can't trace the Jones family, the Dial family, the Brooks family, the woods family, the Clark family, the Collins family, the Cooper family, the Cox family, the Deese family, the Demery family, the Bullard family, the Freeman family, the Fuller family, the Grooms family, the Harden family, the Leviner family, the maynor family etc...(and the list goes on) at all past Robeson. So again; how saying he traced "EACH" is appropriate; I don't know?

It is also true that for a vast majority of families Heinegg states that said individual "MAY" have been the child of other said individual. In some cases he doesn't even say "May" he just lists a "Free Negro" from Virginia and then starts off talking about individuals in NC as being descended from that person without providing any documentation to verify such misleading assumptions. You will find this type of thing in the Hammonds family section, the Bell family section, the Locklear family section, the Revels family section, the Sweat family section,the Wilkins family section, the Wynn family section, the Scott family section, the Chavis family section, the Cumbo family section, the Goins family section, the Carter family section, etc.....and the list goes on.

There were certain names and families that were distinctive, such as Chavis and Cumbo, where Heinegg found descendants in VA, NC and SC. You seem to be suggesting that they should not be considered related, which seems unlikely, especially as he found records of family members along the migration route in tax and land records, for instance. Also, his work has been reviewed and found worthwhile by people far more expert than I. He documented many more families than those in Robeson County.--Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If Heinegg wasn't blatantly trying to discredit Robeson County Indian claims he most definately conducted his research and presented it in a most inaccurate, careless, and inconsistant way.

Verklemp? Where can I find where Heinegg specifically mentions Lumbees in his introduction on his website? I have the Lowrie section as I printed it out about 2 years ago (along with 37 other family trees). I am aware that he blatantly attack's a Tuscarora identity in that section (without documentable basis) but I still can't find the intro you speak of, Please give a specific reference.

As I said I printed out 38 names associated with Robeson in Heineggs work, don't you think it say's something that I just put 29 of them into question? 17 of which (and some of the others I listed would also fall into this category as well under thorough critique, as I just skimmed over it) he can't even trace at all? Things are not nearly as concise as you people are "INTERPRETING (POV)" his work to be and the current article as it is now written must be changed to reflect accurate facts!

The Indian folks in Robeson (both Lumbee and Tuscarora) have a very painful history in the state of North Carolina and such careless one-sided presentation of facts as there are within this current article are most damaging and insulting to our people. Personally I will not argue to take Heineggs work out, but I will demand that it be presented accurately and fairly and not blown out of proportion in the way that it is being presented at this time! If this article is ever going to get to the point of being completely neutral and unbiased then it is essential that the Indian history of North Carolina be addressed in proper context here. The designation of Mullatoe or other free does not make a person part black in the colonial Carolinas. It does insinuate that they could have been, but it doesn not neccessarily mean that they were. In my analysis of Heineggs research I have found only one example of a Lumbee ancestor specifically stating that they were black, yet I have found numerouse examples where they stated that they weren't.

It must farther be understood that detribalized Indains in NC as a whole "were not" labeled as Indian. There is verifiable evidence that there were thousands of American Indian people residing in the Carolinas off of Indian land, yet you only find individuals here and there being regarded as Indian in source documents. Thus it is only proper to assume that the vast majority of the Native population in this region were not labeled properly. This is illustrated (as I mentioned in a previous discussion) by the fact that it is know that roughly a 100 Tuscaroras remained on the Indian Woods reservation when it was disbanded and yet "NOT ONE" Indian was listed there in source documents once that reservation was "NO LONGER LEGAL INDIAN LAND, but there were plenty of Mullatoes and other frees listed there indicating that that is what non-reserved Indians would have legally been classed as in that region (which is the same region that a vast majority of Lumbee ancestors came from)!"

Documented history indicates that there were well over 1000 non-reservated Tuscaroras living in northeaster North Carolina before that reservation was disbanded. Taking into to consideration that they would have been classed as mullatoe or other free, taking into consideration that the Lumbee ancestors who lived there (at the same time these Tuscaroras would have been there) were generally classed as Mullatoe or other free, coupled with the fact that the original affiliation handed down by Lumbee ancestors in Robeson was Tuscarora, coupled with the fact that numerous experts acknowledged repeatedly that Robco Indians "Maintained their race integrity (i.e. were pretty much indian at their core) with a small admixture with the colonial races and an even smaller admixture with other races," were considered to be mostly of Indian origin with the Negro blood "NOT" predominating (but there, and I have never denied this), were described as "there being a large majority who posses 3/4 or more Indian blood" etc... This article "MUST" be changed to reflect this "VERIFIABLE and easily CITABLE" other side of this story in order to present a "NEUTRAL/ACCURATE" wikipedia page to the readers!

Parwells; as of yet I am not sure if you are just presenting the facts as you see them or if you may have other motives here. However I will give you the benefit of the doubt and appologize for coming off as hostile as I do. You must understand that this article is about me and my family and is therefor "VERY" personal for me! I love my people and I am proud of our heritage and legacy and I do not and will not ever take litely any sort of bigotry, undermining, or any other sort of blatant attack on my people heritage and legacy!

Please do give me the benefit of the doubt. I don't have any agenda here, but believe that the recognition that has been given to Heinegg's work means it should be taken seriously. It's also possible that the very long history of your family includes more different facts than were in the traditions and oral histories. In the last 10 years I've been working on my own family and found ancestors we knew nothing about.

So lets all get real here, we can acknowledge that many Lumbees have African ancestry without trying to go beyond the realm of provability by presenting certain un-verifiable opinions (POV)arguing that they aren't largely of Indian ancestry as fact.

Fairness and neutrality is all I (and my kinsmen) am asking for here! Is that to much to ask? Bobby Hurt (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for the Tuscarora claims?Verklempt (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Which particular claim are you specifically intirested in (as there are different sources for different things, some of which have allready been provided on this talk page)? I'd be happy to answer your question but you need to be more specific. Also; as an act of good faith I'd appreciate it if you could return the courtesy and point me to where Heinegg specifically mentions Lumbees in his introduction on his website (I've been looking and I can't find it)?Bobby Hurt (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The website is confusing because Heinegg has continued to add information. When you click on the title of the book, Free African Americans in VA, NC and SC, the next web page shows "Foreword" by historian Ira Berlin, "Acknowledgements", etc., and "Introduction" (although this shows in black not blue, it is a link), then starting the list of names of families.

The "Introduction" is really a long overview and summary of his findings about 400 documented families, starting with five or six major findings - among them that he found no nuclear families of Indians in early records, and much evidence that free Indians joined free African American communities/settlements and married African Americans. He also noted his findings that most African Americans who were free in colonial VA were descended from white women (whom he later shows he was able to identify by name in colonial records) and African/African American men. Later he noted that a few families, among them Collins originating in SC, descended from a white planter father and enslaved mother.

He describes the migration patterns out of VA to NC and SC (and elsewhere) and includes history of early colonial society. He notes the areas where free African Americans tended to settle. There are several major sections in this part that are in bold.

• One is headed "Tri-racial, Portuguese and Indian". In this he notes the Lumbees as just one of the groups that claimed Indian ancestry and that many anthropologists and others have studied. He notes some specific families whose surnames he found with individuals who were freed as slaves in mid-17th c. VA: Cumbo (gives the first variation of Emanuel Cambow), Michael Gowen, and Driggers. He notes that because these people were freed so early, they had many descendants by the time of the Revolution, and notes the number of households of free African Americans/people of color in VA, NC and SC, and even LA (with Goins/Gowen) with those surnames. He noted Robeson Co. as one of several in NC where free African Americans/people of color had settlements at the turn of the 19th c. and wrote about how they were often were well accepted on the frontier. That acceptance seemed to relate to how people described them in period accounts or court cases, where free people of color might be described as Indian or Portuguese. He also noted how some families consistently married white and became part of white communities. Heinegg's work has been well-accepted and reviewed by genealogists and historians who believe he has added important evidence about early colonial and federal period society. I am not going to try to argue about different aspects of it.--Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Origins

While this article is about people known as Lumbees, some of the issues that affected them affected all all free people of color in NC, so editors should refrain from altering text dealing with historic issues to try to reframe all "free Negroes" or "free people of color", as they were referred to in some historic texts, as ancestral Lumbees. One person changed material having to do with the disfranchisement of free people of color by the 1835 constitutional amendment. That amendment affected all free people of color in NC, not just some ancestors of Lumbee families. All free people of color were not ancestral Lumbees.--Parkwells (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)--Parkwells (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be clarified exactly what categories were available at the time each census was made, or at least free of misinformation through implication and reference to one source's controversial and minority conclusions. In particular, I'm referring to the 47/40/13 guesstimation of percentages of race based on a known flawed method. This goes for the implication attached to it as well that keeps popping up in the lead that the Lumbee were African, European and perhaps Native American. This is clearly the minority viewpoint when all things are reasonably considered and, as such, it merits neither a place in the Lead nor a dominant role on this page. Jas392 (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're jumping all over every comment I've made on this page. Please remember we are supposed to be assuming good intentions of the part of other editors. You are assuming every statement or change is somehow against Lumbees. Many editors have worked on this article and others have had a strong interest in showing some of the controversy of the history. My comment above was not about census classification of peoples in NC at all, but about edits someone had made at that time (in May) that suggested that changes to the law in 1835 were directed only at ancestors of Lumbees.--Parkwells (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to contribute to issues so that we clean this page up. Nothing personal - I don't even know you, so my comments are accordingly directed to content as opposed to individual. My argument still stands that the notion that "the Lumbee were African, European and perhaps Native American" is clearly a controversial, minority conclusion based on a known flawed method of scholarship/research when all things are reasonably considered and, as such, merits neither a place in the Lead nor a dominant role on this page. I have no problem allowing a section on the page "showing some of the controversy of the history," but that does not mean that one source with controversial conclusions merits a place in the Lead or a dominant role in the page as a whole. Jas392 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The tri-racial hypothesis is supported by *all* methodologies. It's also the dominant scholarly perspective. It's not even controversial. I see no justification whatsoever for redacting it from the lead. I would recommend redacting the word "perhaps".Verklempt (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you can finally see how "perhaps" may be disparaging to an Indian tribe. I submit The Lumbee are a people claimed to be native to North America and descending from the Cheraw and related Siouan-speaking tribes of Native Americans originally inhabiting the coastal regions of the state of North Carolina. In 1885 the State of North Carolina recognized the Lumbee as American Indians. as the opening for the lead. It's the most accurate while not being disparaging to the people who are the subject of the page. Jas392 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cheraw hypothesis is too controversial to be in the lede. How about: The Lumbee are an Indian tribe in North America. This part is also problematic: In 1885 the State of North Carolina recognized the Lumbee as American Indians. Actually, NC recognized the Croatans, not the Lumbees.Verklempt (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I like "The Lumbee are an Indian tribe in North America." But I will have to point out that the Cheraw hypothesis is not too controversial. It can fairly say that congressional REPORTS have concluded that the Lumbee were a distinct, viable Indian community descended from Siouan speaking tribes, principally the Cheraw. Cite: Senate Report 108-213 (11/25/2003) and there are many more from both the House and Senate concluding the same in their introductory paragraphs. Also see Indian School Supervisor Pierce Report, filed with Senate on 4/4/1912; Special Indian Agent McPherson report, Doc. No. 677, 53rd Cong., 2nd Sess., prepared in 1914; Report of J.R. Swanton, Smithsonian Institute, at request of Bureau of Indian Affairs and submitted to Congress at the 1933 hearing; and Fred A. Baker Report on the Siouan Tribe of Indians of Robeson County, 7/9/1935. These congressional hearings and studies all "concluded that the Lumbee were a distinct, viable Indian community descended from Siouan speaking tribes, principally the Cheraw." Cite: Senate Report 108-213 (11/25/2003) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jas392 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) I don't see why the triracial hypothesis would be "disparaging", unless one cannot bear to acknowledge African ancestry. That's usually the main objection. (2) Even the Lumbee population has been politically split over the Cheraw hypothesis, from the 1930s through to the present. You can't demonstrate that it's uncontroversial just by citing the sources that agree with it. There are plenty of sources that address the controversy, including nearly all of the current scholarly sources. I'd cite Sider and Maynor on this, for starters. (3) Now that I think about it, there may be a problem with describing the Lumbees as a tribe. The fact is that the Robeson Indian population is politically split into factions, and only some of them buy into the Lumbee origins myth. I'm not certain how to best deal with that in the lede. I think the original version that Cuchullain proposed reverting to is still the best one.Verklempt (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) I have no objection to the triracial bit. The problem is when the article implicates that the Lumbee are African, European and "perhaps" Native American. The article can fairly state that congressional REPORTS have concluded that the Lumbee are a distinct, viable Indian community descended from Siouan speaking tribes, principally the Cheraw. Cite: Senate Report 108-213 (11/25/2003) (2) Ditto about the fair statement. But I will concede that the article should also fairly state and cite your preference for pointing out the controversy. (3) Ditto about the fair statement. I'm guessing that you're referring to the Tuscis? This article is not about the Indians of Robeson County. It's about the Lumbee. So, why can't the Lumbee be a tribe? Afterall, they are recognized by the State of North Carolina as the "Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina." With all do respect (I do appreciate your help in parsing this out), the assertion that the Lumbee are not a tribe is really just a distraction. Jas392 (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I now concur on the last one. Clearly they are a tribe according to the political definition at least, and should be described as such. But I still think that the broader topic of "Indians of Rob Co" should be addressed somewhat in the body of the article.Verklempt (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Lowerie Gang War

If the Loweries were fighting against Reconstruction government from 1868-1872, they were fighting Republicans not Democrats, right? This section states the governor asked for Federal troops for help. I think the Democrats did not regain power in the state until later but have to check some other sources.--Parkwells (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Lowry gang began murdering before the end of the war, and was in action until 1872. This time period stretches across both Republican and Conservative regimes.Verklempt (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New section on Heinegg's website

Among the additions on Heinegg's website (wwww.freeafricanamericans.com) is one headed "Colonial Tax Lists, Census and Court Records for DE, MD, NC, SC, TN and VA." Under this is a section "Robeson Co. Family Origins, Tax List". The first page is a summary of the origin of surnames that later appeared in Robeson Co among ancestors of Lumbee; a number were of slaves freed early in colonial times. Other items are transcriptions of tax lists. There are also transcriptions of many court and census records. This is for readers' information.--Parkwells (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I certianly believe that this piece should play a role in the discussion, but I doubt that one source's controversial conclusions should form a dominant role in the Lead or the page as a whole. Jas392 (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The lead is hideously long - please shorten it.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Population

Someone changed the Lumbee population from 30,000 to 53,000 in the Infobox. There is no source for the number.--Parkwells (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted that and the other radical changes made by Jas392 without discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Jas392 says it is from the tribal enrollment office.--Parkwells (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Both numbers should come out until some hard evidence is cited.Verklempt (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What are we calling "hard evidence" these days? I suggest going to the source. Unless, of course, you know of a more accurate and contemporaneous source. BTW, I support this suspension and only hope that similar issues will find a reasonable "consensus."Jas392 (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the US Census is the most reliable source for this question. I don't have a problem with citing the tribal office, if there is a verifiable publication to be cited.Verklempt (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the US Census have a box for "Lumbee?" And even if they did, wouldn't the tribal enrollment office probably get better reporting anyway? Besides, Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), is consistently referenced in federal and state law for the notion that, if anything, a tribe's right to determine their own enrollment is basically the final, fundamental thread of sovereignty that Indian people truly have left. Jas392 (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The guiding authority here is Wikipedia policy, not federal law. We need to cite a reliable and verifiable source.Verklempt (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The enrollment office is the most reliable source. As for verifiability, I submit the Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate of H.R. 65 (July 8, 2008), which used an assessment of 54,000 tribal members. Either 54k or 53k works for me, but the most reliable and up to date source says that the number is actually just under 53k today and possibly less because there are still some recently deceased tribal members whom have not been accounted for. BTW, federal law is authoritative even in Wikipedialand, especially when the Supreme Court is doing the talking. Jas392 (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The cite must be to a published, verifiable, reliable source. The CBO works for me. We need to provide a more detailed cite, though, so that readers can find the source.Verklempt (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

See Congressional Budget Office's cost assessment in Senate Report 110-409, Providing for the Recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for Other Purposes (7/8/2008). Jas392 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead

This does not reflect the whole article and controversy about origins, but mostly addresses only the fight for political recognition, and most recent claims of the tribe. It does not acknowledge opposition by Cherokee and Tuscarora recognized tribes to Federal recognition of Lumbees.--Parkwells (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we create another page or section below the Lead reserved for opponents to the Lumbee, and keep the focus of this page on the Lumbee itself as the page is appropriately titled? Jas392 (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Other tribes' opposition to Lumbee recognition is already addressed in the "Petitioning for Federal recognition" section. I don't think it needs to be in the lede.Verklempt (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I move to strike Ancestors of today's Lumbee tribe were recorded in the 1790 census as "free persons of color", indicating uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and perhaps Native American blood. from the Lead in place it in an "opponents to the Lumbee" section.Jas392 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto for:Genealogical researchers have documented that ancestors of many Lumbee families were part of a tri-racial isolate group of predominantly African and European ethnicity, originating among individuals free in colonial Virginia. Most such free African Americans were descended from unions between white women, servant or free, and African men, servant, free or enslaved. Although relationships across racial lines were tolerated among the servant class in early colonial days, Virginia officials later moved to outlaw them. In the mid-1700s, the free colored families of Virginia migrated together, with other European colonists, into the interior of North Carolina. Researcher Paul Heinegg noted numerous families identified as mulattos, many with characteristically Lumbee names, in the 1768-1770 tax lists for Bladen County, from which Robeson County was formed. Heinegg found no nuclear families listed as Indian. In the 1790-1800 censuses, all free people of color were listed under "other free". Jas392 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think these passage are merely summarizing the "disputed origins" section. I agree that they violate NPOV. I also think they are too long and wordy for the lede.Verklempt (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead can certainly be rewritten, but some of the controversy about the origins of the Lumbee group should be reflected. It's not a minority opinion that their origins are likely tri-racial or subject to dispute in terms of Indian identity. At any rate, there is more than one opinion as to whether Lumbee are truly American Indian, given opposition by federally recognized tribes to their legislative recognition as well. The United South and Eastern Tribes (24) oppose Congressional recognition and want the Lumbee to go through application to Dept. of Interior as the fair solution, through amendment to the 1956 Act. Other federally recognized tribes also oppose Congressional recognition; they want the administrative process followed, in which the American Indian Policy Review Commission participated. In "Of Portuguese Origin": Litigating Identity and Citizenship among the "Little Races" in Nineteenth-Century America", Ariela Gross in Law and History Review wrote in Fall 2007 - "The Croatans—today known as the Lumbee—chose another response to the pressure of Jim Crow: they engaged in an elaborate process of self-definition as Native American. Although they probably shared a common "mixed" heritage with Melungeons, and though they were equally concerned to erase all traces of their African heritage, they began to identify not as white but as Indian. As Jim Crow emerged in North Carolina, the Indians of Robeson County sought a third way in a binary system."--Parkwells (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Other tribes' opposition to Lumbee recognition has largely, and logically, been based on size of population for misinformed fears that the "Indian pie" will be further constrained by recognizing a tribe of over 50k members. And the Eastern Band of Cherokee have vehemently opposed the Lumbee because of casino market sharing concerns along interstate 95. But neither of these are valid reasons to deny federal recognition, so the opposition is forced to rely solely on two academically controversial studies by Dr. Virginia DeMarce and Paul Heinegg for the position that the Lumbee are "an invented North Carolina Indian tribe" despite a voluminous record of unavoidably more credible research to the contrary. See Statement of Michell Hicks, Chief of Eastern Band in H.R. Hearing 110-16 (4/18/2007) to see that these are the only two studies they rely on to proffer this notion. Also, not all of the USET tribes oppose Lumbee recognition (I might add that Chairman Hicks' statement presently appears here as the dominant theme of the Lumbee page - if that's not an outright injustice of bias, I shiver to imagine what would be!). See Testimony of James Martin, Executive Director of USET at the Senate Hearing 108-336 (9/17/2003). Jas392 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC) As for Ariela Gross, I'll just say that Lumbee political opposition does not rely on her work; Gross' piece does not address the voluminous congressional record finding that the Lumbee are in fact Indian; and that Gross' work focuses solely on an analysis of case law trial records to prove ethnic origin (a shotty anthropology at best). Jas392 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a minority opinion that the Lumbee are not American Indian. See Indian School Supervisor Pierce Report, filed with Senate on 4/4/1912; Special Indian Agent McPherson report, Doc. No. 677, 53rd Cong., 2nd Sess., prepared in 1914; Report of J.R. Swanton, Smithsonian Institute, at request of Bureau of Indian Affairs and submitted to Congress at the 1933 hearing; and Fred A. Baker Report on the Siouan Tribe of Indians of Robeson County, 7/9/1935. These congressional hearings and studies "concluded that the Lumbee were a distinct, viable Indian community descended from Siouan speaking tribes, principally the Cheraw." Cite: Senate Report 108-213 (11/25/2003). The Lead says they are African, European, and perhaps Indian while relying on a source that is self-published and neither academic nor peer-reviewed. For a majority opinion, I propose that we rely on an authoritative and reliable factfinding body such as the US Congress' voluminous record dealing with these precise issues over the past 120 years. For instance, it is critical that the following be added to the lead as poignantly factual:

The Lumbee are the only remaining tribe in the United States to have been acknowledged by Congress as Indian and prohibited federal Indian services in the same act. See e.g. S. Hrg 109-610, Statement of Hon. John McCain, US Senator of Arizona, Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, 7/12/2006. There have only been two other tribes that had the same experience: the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas and Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona. See P.L. 95-375 for the Pascua Yaqui (9/18/1978) and P.L. 100-89 for Ysleta (12/18/1987). Congress has since enacted legislation to restore the federal relationship to these two tribes. Id. The only tribe that remains in this situation is the Lumbee. See e.g. S. Rpt. 109-334 (9/13/2006). There are also other state-recognized tribes seeking recognition as American Indian tribes. See Cohen's Handbook on Federal Indian Law section 3.02[8][a]. Jas392 (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The resolution by the USET, on the other hand, did not deal with Heinegg's work at all. They objected to the fact the group had no tribal government for a long time, and they objected to their attempt to circumvent a process in which federally recognized tribes had participated in creating criteria for recognition. In addition, we are supposed to be using third-party sources here, not doing OR into statements by the tribe's political supporters in Congress. Ariela Gross's article demonostrates there are others who think the history of the Lumbee, Melungeons and Narragansett provides interesting contrasts in terms of how they deal with their ancestries. We are not going to reach conclusion here but at least have to acknowledge the ambiguity. In addition, the 1972 article "The Little Races" by E.Thompson in American Anthropologist also addresses the history of biracial and multiracial groups, including the Lumbee. When the Lumbee sought Federal recognition in 1956, they stated in their testimony that they were not seeking any financial help. Now they would like some. That's ok, but maybe fair is also requiring them to go through the administrative process, despite its problems. We're supposed to be describing the tribe and issues here, not settling the political issues.--Parkwells (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Lumbee are a political group, so like it or not we're going to talking about political issues, federal law, and the like. I will not allow this discussion to be relegated solely to the field of academia. Your position is that the Lumbee should go through the BIA process? Bud Shapard authored the regulations for the BIA process and he has testified before Congress that the process was not designed to handle a tribe the size of the Lumbee and that there exists "a history of negative bias within the BIA against Lumbees; [there are] extraordinary costs and time it would take to process a petition through the acknowledgement procedures for a group this size, and...that absolutely nothing new will be learned about this group by forcing the tribe to go the regulatory route." Senate Hearing 108-336 (9/17/2003). The current Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee also publicly acknowledges that the BIA recognition system is so flawed for even smaller tribes that "the process just takes too long and is excessively burdensome." Senate Hearing on Recommendations for Improving the Federal Acknowledgment Process (4/24/2008). Jas392 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(1)I don't see any real serious substantive disagreements here. The lede already states that the Lumbees are federally recognized, that they are tri-racial in origin, and that their ancestry claims are controversial. All of this is easily substantiated, and should not be controversial. So where's the problem? (2) The material about the other tribes cannot go in. As an original synthesis, it violates WP:OR.User:Verklempt|Verklempt]] (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we already agreed on this, but I want to make it clear once again that the language "Ancestors of today's Lumbee tribe were recorded in the 1790 census as "free persons of color", indicating uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and perhaps Native American blood" has no place in the lead. Jas392 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of federal relationship

Congress did not "restore" a relationship. None existed. The federal government had no relationship with these entities; Congress has forced recognition through a political process.--Parkwells (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

P.L. 100-89 restored the legal identity of the Texas tribes through Federal recognition.--Parkwells (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The above reference to P.L. 100-89 was material from one of the tribe's websites, but it is not sufficient, since neither they (apparently) nor I am an Indian law lawyer.--Parkwells (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the language "the federal trust relationship between the US and the tribe is hereby restored" can credibly, responsibly, or even reasonably be construed as anything but restoration language. This is a direct quote of the public law, or the statute itself rather. You can look it up on thomas.gov under public laws or Westlaw or Lexis. Moreover, it's just sloppy to say that an act restored a tribe's legal identity through federal recognition. It doesn't make sense when worded that way - it's like talking about the femur being broken in your head.Jas392 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This debate is irrelevant to the Lumbee article.Verklempt (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant? This is probably the most important part of Lumbee history today. I'll just assume that you don't quite understand legislative precedent and break it down here all over again: The Lumbee are unique among all Native American tribes as the only tribe in the United States subject to an act of the United States Congress that both acknowledged them as Indian and terminated them in the same act. There have only been two other tribes unfortunate enough to have been put in the same circumstance as the Lumbee: the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas and Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona. In both cases, Congress enacted legislation that acknowledged the tribes as Indians then terminated them in the same act. Also in both cases, Congress has corrected this injustice by extending federal recognition to both tribes. The only tribe that remains in this unfortunate situation is the Lumbee. In short, whether or not those other two tribes were 'restored' or 'recognized' determines much of the argument as to whether the Lumbee are currently recognized. You see, being 'restored' acknowledges that you were once 'recognized.' The Ysleta bill that put them in this position was actually modeled after the 1956 Lumbee Act, so if they got 'restored' then there's a very credible legislative precedent argument that the Lumbee are in fact recognized as an Indian tribe already although they are denied Indian services. I hope you can now see how absolutely relevant this is to the discussion of Lumbee, a political entity. Jas392 (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the argument, and I agree that it is pertinent. The problem is that it violates WP:OR, unless you can find an appropriate source the makes the same argument.Verklempt (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. For the limited, but equally meaningful fact that "the only other tribe placed in a similar position is the Tiwa Tribe of Texas...using the 1956 Act as a model" and "in 1987, Congress enacted legislation to restore the Tiwas" see Senate Report 109-334 ((9/13/2006). Also see Federal Recognition: The Lumbee Tribe's Hundred Year Quest" available at www.lumbeetribe.com/recognition/100_year_quest.pdf The Tiwas are commonly cited, but the Pascua are literally overlooked in this context due to poor research staff, but I'll try to find a good source that includes the Pascua as well. Until then, I'm willing to limit the scope of this fact to the Tiwas as the reports have consistently pointed out. Along those lines, I'm only citing one report here, but others can be added if you feel that it's necessary. Jas392 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that argument could be mentioned somewhere in the article, citing hte Senate committee report. As I wrote elsewhere today, I would not give partisan political statements the same weight as scholarly publications.Verklempt (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but I'll reiterate the distinction I made between congressional reports and congressional hearings: testimony from congressional hearings can be politically motivated (i.e. the references in the current page to Chief Hicks), but congressional reports are an analysis of the entire scope of the record. A highly academic record, I might add. Jas392 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

There has been no discussion about the recent wave of edits that contradict much of what was in the previous version. I don't know who's right, but there needs to be discussion before making such massive changes. If this continues there will be no option but to protect the page from editing until the disputes are solved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

The tribe went through several name changes: from Croatan, to Cherokees, to Siouan, to Lumbee. This is off the top of my head. If we want name changes in the lede, then it should cover all of the names IMO.Verklempt (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't care. There might be some mention of name changes because it would be more reflective of the article that follows.--Parkwells (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I can go either way here. If we name all of the tribes though, let's try to keep it unbiased or slanted toward implications that the Lumbee kept pulling names out of the sky for recognition purposes. The different names were given to them by the legislature and non-Indian "historians" of the time, not the Lumbee. There's evidence of the term "Lumbee" as early as 1730 and the first time the Lumbee tribe itself voted, in 1953, it was a landslide. There should be no room, in the Lead at least, for misleading or disparaging implications.Jas392 (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently the page says "In the early 1950s, they once again adopted a new tribal identity, naming themselves for the nearby Lumber River," which needs to be changed in order to get rid of the implication that the Lumbee kept pulling names out of the sky for recognition purposes or that they aren't really Indian because they don't derive from only one historic tribe (they are clearly a mix of several historic tribes as well as some White and Black). First of all, McNickle wrote in 1936 that "while the state showed uncertainty in its choice of an official name, it continued to extend additional benefits, for example directing that a special ward in the State hospital for the insane be set apart for them, as also in the Robeson County jail and the Home for the Aged and Infirm." More specifically, Henderson wrote in 1923 that "they violently resent being called Croatans... One Indian of whom I inquired why they so bitterly disliked to be called Croatans said "Croatan means nigger and is a fighting word with us." It's common knowledge that McMillan gave them this name from his Lost Colony theory, which may or may not be credible but the point is that the Lumbee ancestors did not give themselves this name. As for the name Cherokee, Pierce wrote that "this attempt to get recognition as members of the Cherokee Tribe should not be dismissed casually as being due to a desire to get land or other benefits designed for the Eastern Band of Cherokees. It resulted rather from the urging of McLean of Lumberton, NC. McLean had befriended these people and he spent years studying their history and championing their right to recognition as Indians. As a historian he was far from reliable, but he was essentially correct in concluding that, "whatever the origin of the Indians of this community was, it is certain that from the first settlement they have been separated from the other inhabitants of that region and are of Indian descent, with Indian characteristics, with complexion, features, and hair of the Indian race..."" Again, the first time the tribal members themselves voted was in 1953 and it was a landslide to adopt Lumbee. Moreover, Vine Deloria, Jr. (a Godfather in Indian law and enrolled member of the Standing Rock Sioux) testified before Congress in 1988 that "formal tribal government is a creation of the BIA and not an Indian characteristic. A traditional Indian community more closely resembles what we find in Robeson County among the Lumbee, large extended families who exert social and political control over family members, and who see their family as part of an extended people. This method of government, incidentally, is the only valid and viable way to control human behavior apart from a massive prison system such as we have in the US today." Jas392 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side, I'll just note that Pierce wrote in 1912 regarding the Cherokee designation failure that "this was without doubt a good solution, for as one of the old Croatans expressed to me, "Had my people been given federal aid along with the Cherokees, I am very much afraid that they would become as lazy and good for nothing as they are."" Jas392 (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

I've protected the page due to the recent edit warring. Further changes need to be discussed first, especially radical changes like the ones that have been made recently.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm the gadfly here. This page really needs to be cleaned up, so I'm glad that we have this opportunity to reach a reasonable consensus.Jas392 (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on sources

Paul Heinegg did years' worth of research on his book Free African Americans in North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina. He received awards for this work both from the North Carolina Genealogical Society in 1992, and the Donald Lines Jacobus Award for the best work of genealogy published between 1991 and 1994 from the American Society of Genealogists in 1994. There were whites in North Carolina who objected to the award by the state association (per 8 Jan 2004 article, NY Times). He continues to update his material on his website, and has added material on families in Maryland and Delaware. He has also published articles with Dr. Virginia Easley De Marce, a Ph.D. in history who served as President of the National Genealogical Society, and works at Dept of Interior in reviewing Native American tribal recognition. Although Heinegg's first book was self-published, later editions with updates have been published every two years by Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc. We are not required to justify our sources here, but Heinegg's work has received praise from historians such as Dr. Boles of Rice U. and Dr. Ira Berlin of U of MD. --Parkwells (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what Heinegg, De Marce, and Gross posit, "there is a voluminous congressional and administrative record" dealing with these precise issues in greater scope and performed for specific purposes of Lumbee origin as opposed to African American heritage, which "concluded that the Lumbees were a distinct, viable Indian community descended from Siouan speaking tribes, principally the Cheraw." Senate Hearing Report 108-213 (11/25/2003). Jas392 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The controversy should be in the article. However, statements made by partisans in a political proceeding should not be given equal weight with scholarly publications.Verklempt (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be in the article but it must not take a dominant position of the article. You have to understand that there is so much more to this story than the fact that some Lumbees mixed. It's neither fair nor accurate when that position is blown out of proportion to champion a notion that Lumbees are not Indian. I will concede that testimony from congressional hearings can be politically motivated, but congressional reports are an analysis of the entire scope of the record. A highly academic record, I might add. Jas392 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is important to retain the nuance. Few people disagree that the Lumbees are Indians today. That much is uncontroversial, and has been for a century. The debate is over their ancestors' identity prior to 1885. The dominant position among scholars is that prior to 1885, they were a multiracial population, whose public identity was mostly "mulatto" -- not Indian. That shift in identity from mulatto to Indian is what makes them so interesting. Of course, there were a number of groups that did the same thing, but the Lumbees were the first and largest group to pull it off. The Wikipedia article simply has to retain this historical narrative. It would be a huge mistake for the article to simply echo the current Lumbee origins myth, which is that they were always Indians.Verklempt (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is why I think the lede should be restored to how it was a while ago, when it said something to the effect of: "The Lumbee are a Native American people originally of North Carolina, though their origins are disputed. While Lumbees today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of European Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans. " It looks like no one, least of all the Lumbee themselves, identify the Lumbee as anything other than Indian. However, any Indian tribe may have mixed origins. Just look at the Seminole, who are a mix of Creek, various other Indian peoples, and white and black Americans. But no one denies that they are fully an Indian tribe today.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cuchullain, how am I supposed to assume good faith when you totally just deleted my previous entry? Anyway, here's what I had to say: I'm not a genealogical researcher, but I do understand that it's logically impossible for a group of people to become Indian when Indian means indigenous to this land. For instance, let's call the indigenous people A, well if A mixed with B, C, D, E and F to produce what is presently G then how did G only become indigenous after mixing when it was also A all along? What I'm saying is that they have always been Indian because A has always been a part of the equation. The dispute these days seems to be over how much of a role A played or plays in that equation. Jas392 (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC) And I agree with you that there probably was a time when the Lumbee ancestors didn't go around waving an Indian flag, for all the right reasons, but that has no bearing on whether or not they were Indian during that time. Jas392 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Jas392 (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, how about this: The Lumbee are a Native American people originally of North Carolina, though their origins are disputed.While Lumbees today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of the Cheraw and related Siouan-speaking tribes of the coastal regions of North Carolina as well as some European and African ancestry.In 1885 the State of North Carolina recognized the Lumbee as American Indians.Jas392 (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting your comment was a simple mistake, an editing conflict - we were just posting at the same time. There's no reason you should fail to assume good faith over something like that. As to your equation, the key is that G is not A, they evolved from A among the other groups. In the same way the Seminole are not Creeks, they branched off from the Creeks, mixed with other groups, and became something new all together. Just because there were no Seminoles prior to the 18th century does not mean they are not Indians. Also, being Indian does not necessarily mean they are indigenous to the land - few of the Indian tribes in Oklahoma are indigenous to there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous to the continent is what I meant. It was said earlier that they were not "Indian" before 1885, not that they weren't "Lumbee" before 1885. I'm okay with not being Lumbee before 1885, but the argument stands that it is not logically possible for a group to suddenly become Indian/indigenous to this continent. Your ancestors were either here or they weren't; no matter what name the group goes by now, they're either Indian throughout or not. It's an immutable characteristic. Jas392 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To use an essentialist definition of "Indian" would totally violate the overwhelming contemporary scholarly consensus on ethnic identity. I support Cúchullain's recommendation that we revert to that previous version, which is superior to the current version.22:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So, to be Native American doesn't mean that your ancestors were indigenous to this continent anymore? Wow, academia is actually worse than practitioners joke. This is beside the point though, because it has nothing to do with why you think Cuch's previous version is better. How about I lay them out, and hopefully we'll get more reasonable people in here to say which is less disparaging:

The Lumbee are a Native American people originally of North Carolina, though their origins are disputed.While Lumbees today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of the Cheraw and related Siouan-speaking tribes of the coastal regions of North Carolina as well as some European and African ancestry.In 1885 the State of North Carolina recognized the Lumbee as American Indians. OR

The Lumbee are a Native American people originally of North Carolina, though their origins are disputed. While Lumbees today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of European Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans.

My concern is that the second version is still slanted because it makes all things equal relative to the race mixture, when we all know that Lumbees are Indian first and foremost. So, the word Native American should not come last and it should be separated from the other two to distinguish them as not being equal parts. Jas392 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying "...in origin a mixture of Native Americans, European Americans, and African Americans with Native Americans first. However, which tribe(s) they are related to appears to be in dispute.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your recommendation.--Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't "all know they were first and foremost Indian". They were discussed for years as triracial in studies, among several other triracial groups in frontier areas. As Verklempt noted, they have been identifying as Indian since they were recognized in 1885. It's reasonable to show their origins as triracial. Woods' 2004 article in American Anthropologist agreed with Virginia DeMarce on the migrations of many Lumbee ancestors into NC from VA. --Parkwells (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are many competing definitions of Indian identity, both among scholars and among Indians. This article should not take a position supporting a single definition, especially in the lede. I would object to Jas392's first sentence, since that is a controversial statement. The lede should not take sides in any controversy. Also, there are no primary sources identifying the Lumbee ancestors as Cheraw or any other tribe. Their tribal origins is also disputed, and thus should not be in the lede.Verklempt (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For now, I'll note that you said the Lead should not take sides in any controversy.

But I will also disabuse you of the notion that "there are no primary sources identifying the Lumbee ancestors as Cheraw or any other tribe" by referring you to John Reed Swanton's expert opinion that "the evidence available thus seems to indicate that the Indians of Robeson County who have been called Croatan and Cherokee are descended mainly from certain Siouan tribes of which the most prominent were the Cheraw and Keyauwee, but they probably included as well remnants of the Eno, and Shakori, and very likely some of the coastal groups such as the Waccamaw and Cape Fears." (Swanton 1934). Also see Swanton 1938: 323. Jas392 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Swanton merely consulted the census and some books he had available in his office. He never did any primary archival research, and he's not referring to such evidence in this passage.Verklempt (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Any cites for that notion? Otherwise Swanton and all the others stand, because it would be a violation of WP:OR policy, especially when there are contemporaneous congressional REPORTS (not hearings) that rely on these studies. Jas392 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) Here I was contributing to a discussion about sources, not advocating language for the article. If you're interested in what evidence Swanton looked at, you would indeed have to do original research in the NAA archives, and I agree that it couldn't go in the article until it was published. (2) For the article, it is certainly appropriate to cite Swanton, but he is only one of many voices that meet WP:RS, and not all of them buy his hypothesis. All of the credible sides should be addressed. In other words, the lede should not take the Cheraw hypothesis as given, due to its controversial nature.Verklempt (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the tri-racial part and it does not matter if you agree Lumbees are first and foremost Indian, you must concede to fact for the sake of this article. As for not being Indian before 1885, you should know by now that Special Indian Agent O.M. McPherson described Lumbee surnames in an Indian community via land grants during the 18th century early settlement of the area of the Lumbee as follows:

"At the coming of the white settlers there was found located on the waters of the Lumber River a large tribe of Indians, speaking English, tilling the soil, owning slaves [BTW how many African Americans do you think owned slaves at this time?], and practicing many arts of civilized life. They occupied the country as far west as the Pee Dee, but their principal seat was on the Lumber, extending along the river for 20 miles. They had their lands in common, and land titles only became known on the approach of white men. The first grant of land to any of this tribe of which there is written evidence in existence was made by George II in 1732 to Henry Berry and James Lowrie [Lumbee surnames], two leading men of the tribe, and was located on the Lowrie Swamp, east of the Lumber river in present county of Robeson, NC. A subsequent grant was made to James Lowrie in 1738. According to tradition, there were deeds of land of older date, described as "white" deeds and "Smith" deeds, but no trace of their existence can be found." McPherson 1915: 48-49.

It's utterly absurd to be a contributor to this article and hold the belief that the present day Lumbees' ancestors were not Indian until 1885 when they petitioned for assistance for their Indian Normal School. I submit that your scope of research is too narrow, and I can't help but wonder what the motive is for such a limited POV. If we can just get past the Lead, I have plenty more work to do on the body of this article. Jas392 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

McPherson is plagiarizing McMillan. There are no primary sources that would substantiate this passage. Those land grants don't exist. They were fabricated by McMillan.Verklempt (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Any cites for that notion? Otherwise McPherson and all the others stand, because it would be a violation of WP:OR policy, especially when there are contemporaneous congressional REPORTS (not hearings) that rely on these studies. Jas392 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The NC state archivist published on the topic, and so did Heinegg. I believe that this is already in the article, or was at one time. I am also in possession of a professor's conference paper on the subject. I don't know if it meets WP:RS or not. Probably a borderline case, unless he's published it in the meantime.Verklempt (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cites? The standard should be pretty high for discrediting this, certainly higher than a source that is not peer-reviewed and deals primarily with African American heritage as opposed to Lumbee origins as McPherson, Swanton, Pierce and many others did and concluded to the contrary. Jas392 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Heinegg dealt with primary sources of land deeds that did exist, not the imaginary ones of McPherson and McMillan. He traced back surnames on those deeds and other colonial records (many of whom appear to be Lumbee ancestors) to many African Americans free in VA. You keep complaining his first book was not peer-reviewed, but his work has been assessed and recommended by leading academic historians in the field, such as Ira Berlin of U of MD who are familiar with his sources and how he evaluated them. In addition, Heinegg's work has received awards from the state and national genealogical associations, and updated editions have been published by a genealogical publishing house. The fact that he discovered something significant about mixed-race families, including Lumbee ancestors and other Indian groups, while first trying to trace African Americans doesn't discount his findings. There does not appear to be any data about what proportion of those early groups were of Indian ancestry, after all.--Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue of land grants is already addressed in the article. McPherson and McMillan were wrong and the Lumbee backed away from using that as a basis for their claim for recognition. See - "In 1885, Hamilton McMillan wrote that Lumbee ancestor James Lowrie received sizeable land grants early in the century and by 1738 possessed combined estates of more than two thousand acres (8 km²). Dial and Eliades claimed that John Brooks established title to over one thousand acres (4 km²) in 1735, and Robert Lowrie gained possession of almost seven hundred acres (2.8 km²).[24] However, according to a state archivist, no land grants were issued during these years in North Carolina, and the first land grants to documented Lumbee ancestors did not occur until more than a decade later.[25] The Lumbee petition for federal recognition backed away from McMillan's claims."[26] The last cite is from their own 1987 Petition for recognition.--Parkwells (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have one of the few copies of the 1987 Lumbee petition and that's where the above McPherson cite comes from. The 1987 petition supplies that McPherson quote above (which came from McMillan originally but McPherson's 252 pages were not simply a plagiorization of McMillan's 27 pages as stated above - he cited McMillan where appropriate and even drew contrary conclusions) but the petition also states that "the first land grant in the area of Drowning Creek was to Henry O'Berry in 1748" prior to the quote from above. Perhaps the last sentence that "According to tradition, there were deeds of land of older date, described as "white" deeds and "Smith" deeds, but no trace of their existence can be found" is informative, especially when you consider that Pierce said that "it is a curious fact that it is a rare occurrence for one of these people to sell an acre of land, and that there are now lands in possession of certain families that have been handed down from father to son, generation after generation, with no record of transfer from the original grant from the state." In fact, immediately after that "the first land grant" part, the petition nonetheless states that "it is clear there was a community of 300 or more individuals on Drowning Creek that held land in common. The most reasonable explanation for its existence, given the lack of white settlement in the area, is that the community consists of resident tribal members." In short, (1) the 1987 petition did not step away from the McPherson/McMillan quote that Lumbee ancestors were already on Drowning Creek during first white settlement of the area; and (2) just because the State archivist doesn't have a record of the transfer doesn't mean that there weren't Lumbee ancestors there at the time. Jas392 (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

However, according to a state archivist, no land grants were issued during these years in North Carolina, and the first land grants to documented Lumbee ancestors did not occur until more than a decade later.[25] Aside from this citation being hearsay, it is false in part, at least as written. Ms. Hofmann did find land grants issued during these years and recorded them in her book: Margaret M. Hofmann, comp., Colony of North Carolina, 1735-1764; Abstracts of Land Patents, Volume One (Weldon, N.C.: Roanoke News Co., 1982). The Rob't. Lowry grant is found on p. 113, no. 1620; the John Brooks grants are found on p. 101, no. 1420 and p. 103, no. 1462. What is partly true is that DeMarce cannot find a documented connection of these individuals to Lumbee. This does not mean they are not connected, documented or not.David F Lowry (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)ETA: I am getting this not directly from Hofmann's book but from DeMarce's footnotes 10 and 13 of her NGSQ article "Looking at Legends". I leave open the possibility that DeMarce is simply wrong since I cannot get hold of the Hofmann book myself.David F Lowry (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No one says the Lumbee did not have any Indian ancestors. Obviously they did. The dispute is whether they, as the group that currently identifies as "Lumbee", always considered themselves an Indian tribe or were considered such by other groups.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See paragraph immediately prior to yours regarding holding land in common prior to white settlement of the area as well as my reference in this discussion to Vine Deloria (or any other Indian expert) regarding traditional Indian communities. Formal tribal government is a creation of the BIA and not an Indian characteristic. Jas392 (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I can answer this any better than Jas392. I only want to add that I cannot even get my head around the issue! Why on earth, having no notion of India, would we have called ourselves Indian back then? We called ourselves "Our People". Mohawks by the English and French call themselves "Flint Place People". The so-called Oneidas call themselves "Upright Stone Place People". The so-called Onondagas call themselves "Hill People". The so-called Cayugas call themselves "People Of The Pipe". The so-called Senecas call themselves "Big Hill People".David F Lowry (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)