Talk:Lumbee/Archive 1

DISPUTED LUMBEE ORIGINS
This entry seems to have been created by someone emotionally invested in the Lumbee's not being American Indian. DNA tests show some American Indian DNA in all Lumbees. Lumbees are tri-racial isolate. Actual Lumbees should be consulted on this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.59.2 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I move to change the class of this article to C until it reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. Many of the points made below demonstrate that this page is clearly slanted toward implications that the Lumbee are not Indian. In fact, that is much the dominant theme throughout, especially in the Lead. Many of the people that are the subject of this article find it particualrly disparaging that the Lead states the Lumbee are "African, European and perhaps Native American" especially when the sources cited for this POV are self-published, not peer-reviewed, and completely contrary to the vast majority of information about the topic. Jas392 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The view that the Lumbees are an Indian tribe is hotly disputed, as evidenced by President Bush's veto of federal legislation that would have granted them recognition as a tribe. I have re-written the opening paragraph to acknowledge both sides of this issue.
 * The Bush veto needs to cite a source, or else it will have to come out.Verklempt (talk) ''23:19, 3 May 2008 (U

Where is the fact that the Lumbee were acknowledged by both houses of Congress and the bill was signed into law by the president in 1957(Eisenhour?) BTW, this law was enacted by both houses of congress, and not just the house as is mistakenly stated in the article. This year our recognition bill has passed the house of representatives and senate committee. Also 1) why isn't the information presented by Bobby Hurt about Heinegg and Demarce in here. 2) Why isn't the truth about the Free Person of Color information presented at the beginning? The George Lowrie quote in 1864 is a documented quote by the honorable OM McPherson. Why isn't it in the article? 3)Why isn't the fact that Swanton, Sider, Campisi, and all the other antrholopologists/ historians mentioned? 4) Isn't this article supposed to be a fair represetation of both sides of the issue? 5) Verklempt, I have written to the wikipedia board and hope to write to whoever will listen because your one sided version of the truth is a travesty of justice to the Lumbee people. You refuse to listen to anyone else and take it upon yourself to write whatever you see fit.  8 May 2008 Alumbo

I agree that the Heinegg and Demarce work is problematic. The work is presented here as scholarship when in fact it is neither academic nor peer reviewed. In the case of my own genealogy, I could detect many errors and inconsistencies. Here is one example: in one part of Heinegg's work, he places Sara Kearsey as married to one Lowry male. In another section, he has her married to another Lowry male. I had a professional historian point out this inconsistency to him and he corrected it on his website without acknowledgement. You can verify this by looking at his site through the 'wayback machine' internet archive and compare one of the older versions with the current version of the website. If that was the only inconsistency, he could be forgiven, perhaps. However, there are many more as Mr. Hurt has pointed out, and as I have also detected from my knowledge of my own family history. One quickly comes to realize that this is sloppy work, and much of it was apparently made up as he went along.David F Lowry (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Heinegg book was certainly peer-reviewed, as it won a major genealogy award from a national society. It has also been reviewed favorably by national historians whose own research has been in similar time frames. They seem to be satisfied that he has made careful and thorough use of a variety of primary sources in colonial and later records. --Parkwells (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You and I have different notions of peer-review. A self-published book does not constitute peer-review, neither does winning an award from a society, especially when a number of society members requested withdrawal of Heinegg's award.  Furthermore, the work has been entirely ignored by anthropologists, i.e. real scientists.  Genealogy is not rigorous enough to be taken seriously.  Peer review consists of rigorous review of the work before it ever sees the light of day.David F Lowry (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, I used too general a term. I have seen the work recommended by historians. Heinegg has never suggested this was a book of anthropology or science. It is a history, documentation of families from historic records.--Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 13 May 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. Jas392 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I also move to strike the entire last paragraph of the lead 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".[3] Jas392 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Even more logical inconsistencies in Heinegg’s “work”:

In the Lowry chapter, he writes;

''The Kersey family were not Tuscarora Indians. They were a mixed-race family descended from Peter Kersey, "a Negroe" living in Surry County, Virginia, on 4 March 1678 when the court ordered him to return his son John Kersy to the estate of Judith Parker, deceased [Haun, Surry County Court Records, III:240].''

Yet, in the Kersey chapter, ascent of Sally Kersey to Peter the Negroe is presented as merely a possibility, not a certainty;

''Thomas' children may have been i. Ester Cairsey who was listed as a harborer of the "free Negors and Mullatus" who were living in what was then Bladen County on 13 October 1773 [G.A. 1773, Box 7]. ii. Sarah/Sally, born say 1750, supposed to have married James Lowry in Franklin County before 1769 when Lowry moved to Robeson County. She was said to have been a "half-breed Tuscarora Indian woman" [Blu, The Lowrie History, 5].''

In the Lowry chapter, he writes;

''Polly Cumbo was not Portuguese. She was a descendant of Emanuel Cumbo, a "Negro" who was granted a patent for 50 acres in James City County on 18 April 1667 [Patent 6:39]. ''

Yet, in the Cumbo chapter, he presents the ascent of Polly Cumbo to Emanuel as not a certainty but merely a possibility;

''Emanuell1 Cambow, "Negro," was granted a patent for 50 acres in James City County on 18 April 1667 [Patents 6:39]. He may have been the "Mulata named Manuel" who was adjudged to be a Christian servant by the Virginia Assembly in September 1644. He was ordered to serve as other Christian servants and freed in September 1665 [VMHB XVII:232]. He was probably the father of ….''

Emphasis mine.

Mr. Hurt has already pointed out some of this. Heinegg has most certainly NOT traced Lumbee ancestors to mixed-race unions in Colonial Virginia beyond a reasonable doubt. He presents possibilities on the one hand, and he converts these possibilities to certainties on the other hand. This cleverly concealed presentation of speculation as fact is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.David F Lowry (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What some take to be inconsistencies in language was probably Heinegg's way to accommodate differences in spelling and other factors. But we're all guessing. An unusual name like Cumbo was not common, and other reviewers, including the genealogical society that gave his work a major award, do not seem to believe he stretched too far in determining linkages between some generations even though there were not birth certificates available, for instance.--Parkwells (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I might add that in addition to the flawed Heinegg research, the "Seltzer" study is judged by present day anthropologist to be a joke. In 1936, Carl Seltzer measured the teeth, foreheads, cheekbones, etc. of hundreds of Lumbee people to help the BIA make a determination who was eligible, under the Indian Reorganization Act, for federal benefits. If these measurements fell within certain parameters, the individual was judged to be 1/2 or more Native blood. The flaws in this study became immediately apparent, when it was found that full brothers and sisters were "measured" in the study. In many cases, one of the siblings tested positively while the other did not (Hmmmm!) How could one sibling "make it" and the other "could not"? Seltzer also failed to recognize that these "measurements" differ from tribe to tribe. Where did he obtain his norms? A question I had with the Pollitzer study done in 1972, is how could Pollitzer ascertain the NA blood quantum without the benefit of DNA analysis? Did he go back to the Lumbee communtiy to measure some more eyes, teeth, and foreheads? Maybe he consulted palm reading specialists to help him break down the racial percentages?! Alumbo 8 May 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.34.231 (talk)


 * Whoever wrote about the Seltzer and Pollitzer studies (or another editor) added that neither study is considered reliable for determining ancestry. I thought they must have been acknowledged in the article as early studies because of other people who would point to them and say, see, so-and-so proved in 1936 (or 1972) that Lumbees were Indian. So the studies and conclusions were mentioned, but also noted as flawed and now abandoned.--Parkwells (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Seltzer study is not abandoned. It is a core piece of the "Original 22" faction's rhetoric. Thus it is still historically relevant today, nonsense though it may be.Verklempt (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The 22 came from a, let's call it, "high standard" test and only examined 200 some odd individuals when there were several thousand at the time. Regardless, the half-blood study was only performed for purposes of organizing under the Indian Reorganization Act, which only required 10 half-bloods. Unfortunately the tribe was split into two factions over the proper name, so efforts to organize under the IRA failed. Later, the 1956 Act put an end to being able to organize under the IRA. Jas392 (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Jamie K. Oxendine concerning his American Indian Clothing
Hello. This is Jamie K. Oxendine. Why am I dressed in more Creek Style Clothing? There are many reasons and each one would take up a considerable amount of space here. I am more than willing and happy to address each one with anyone that would like to contact me privately. Here are some starters:

1. I took many years to re-do the entire family genealogy several years ago when the Lumbee Tribe was being re-structured due to the Federal Court Order and we found trace elements of other South East Tribes in the family line. 2. I have always been attracted to Southeast Woodland Clothing and most particular that of the time period after the American Revolution and before the Pre-Civil War Era. Among scholars of the South East Woodland Area this is often referred to as the Classical South Eastern Woodland Clothing Period of 1790 - 1840. 3. I did not want to dress in the clothing of the Powwow especially the Modern Powwow since the middle 20th Century (WWII to present day). There is nothing wrong with that dress and it is all well done and very beautiful. But that clothing is not South Eastern. Most of the “Powwow” clothing as many know is that of the people of the Great Plains with some aspects from the North East Woodlands and the Great Lakes Woodlands. Examples: The Men’s Northern Traditional Clothing is from the Northern Plains. The Men’s Southern Straight Clothing is from the Southern Plains. The Men’s Fancy Dance Clothing, Men’s Grass Dance Clothing and Men’s Chicken Dance Clothing are from the Central Plains (many argue of the exact location of each so the term Central Plains is used here to hopefully avoid any arguments or upsetting some about saying they are definitely from a specific area). 4. As many well know, the Lumbee have roots in both the North East Nations and the South East Nations as we have ancestors among both the cultural lines of where the North East Woodland Culture and the South East Woodland Culture meet (before European Contact and after European Contact). Our ancestors had dress that was influenced by both North East Woodland and South East Woodland ideas and concepts before Contact and this continued after Contact. I chose to use this and you can see some of both in my clothing. 5. True South East Clothing before Contact and right at Contact for the summer (even late summer) would be very sparse - Men’s Clothing was very bare (almost naked) for the summer months and I am sure that many would not want to see that at the Grand Opening of the National Museum of the American Indian (although there were several representatives of the Pacific Peoples dressed in accurate sparse clothing of Contact and before Contact at the NMAI Celebration). Also that type of historically accurate South Eastern clothing would not be accepted at many events except perhaps a very accurate historical event like of the time before and at White Contact. I am modest and chose not to dress in the true South East Clothing of the time of Contact and Post-Contact. 6. It is well known that once the Lumbee were well established in the interior of what became the “Carolinas” they had been well influenced and accepting of White Contact Clothing. This was as early as the late Elizabethan Period and the start of the Colonial Period. The Lumbee along with other Tribes in the area were known to have worn White style clothing and even have late Middle English words in their vocabulary. I chose not to use this dress as it is generally typical Colonial Dress and Pioneer Dress.

I could go on and on but this is already a plethora of information on why I am dressed as I am in the picture. I do have several different outfits that fit the South Eastern Classical Time Period. They are all different and one can find a variety of things that may point to a particular Nation. I also have outfits that fit the North East Woodlands right around the time of the French & Indian War and the American Revolution. As I enjoy all aspects of the Arts & Crafts of our beautiful Native American Culture, I have also made outfits that are more indicative of the Great Plains and the Great Lakes. 4.159.159.81 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Jamie K. Oxendine (Lumbee/Creek), April 25, 2008. Edited October 29, 2008.

Disputed Origins
Let's honestly present the dispute over Lumbee origins. The 1790 census pretty conclusively shows that the "Lumbee" are originally descended from mixed race unions of European colonists and African slaves. The theory of Indian origin was created after the Civil War when the North Carolina authorities were trying to stop violence between the "coloreds" of Robeson County and the Klan. It is likely that a few scattered Indians joined the colored settlements of Robeson County, but the "Lumbee" are not a tribe. In fact, the "Lumbee" name was made up in the 1950s.
 * As I understand it, Heinegg traced back from individuals in the 1790 census to identify in other records that their ancestors were usually white English women, free or indentured servant, and African or African-american men, free, slave or indentured servant. Court and land deed records were often quite detailed.--Parkwells (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)--Parkwells (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's honestly present Heinegg's work. It rests on the premise that the census and other records accurately reflect the race of the individual.  This is naive.  From what I can tell, the individual had little control over what was written on the record in those times, eg. http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7ECAP/POCA/POC_law.html  All Best, D.F. Lowry


 * Heinegg quotes from many different types of early records in which other races are named, for instance, early records in VA noting Indian individuals from East Asia, at least one of whom first lived in London; the 1768 tax list for Bladen Co, NC, in which Thomas Britt was listed as Indian. He notes that no nuclear families were listed as Indian in 1768 in Bladen Co.  He quotes from early records that document freeing of some slaves in the  mid-17th century, for instance, and/or court cases against specifically named white women who bore children who were mixed race. This is the documentation of origin of many multiracial families, with descendants by the same names who later went to NC. He acknowledges that in the later censuses mulatto may have referred to people of mixed African and Native American ancestry.  It's an overstatement to say that all such records were wrong, and that all free people of color were really unrecognized Indians.--Parkwells (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, you cite a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. Heinegg states that Thomas Britt was listed as an Indian in that tax list, but if you actually go look at the damn thing, it is Britt's servant who is being mentioned as being Indian.  There are other cases where he lists documents that other folks cannot even find to be extant!David F Lowry (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Heinegg cites Byrd's transcription of the Britt document, not the orginal source. What documents does Heinegg cite that you can't find? I've run into that problem with Evans (many times), but never with Heinegg.Verklempt (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This must not constitute a part of the extensive research in primary source documents, that and Norment.David F Lowry (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't follow your train of thought here. Is your complaint that some of Heinegg's work is based on secondary sources? That is really not much of a criticism. Usually William Byrd is a very good transcriber.Verklempt (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply don't like seeing a work full of errors and logical inconsistencies given such a degree of credibility in this article. I have pointed out several inconsistencies, Mr. Hurt has pointed out several.  It is very personal to me and I will no longer edit on the main-page as it constitutes conflict of interest.  In that regard, I appreciate you folks allowing me to edit there in the past.  He gets the Lowry genealogy wrong, Norment gets it wrong, the Lumbee Tribe may or may not know our genealogy, I do not know.  For me, this is not about the Lumbee Tribe.  I really will not go into it beyond that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David F Lowry (talk • contribs) 21:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you know of errors in Heinegg's work, then I suggest you inform him. I have done so in the past, and he always promptly corrects his work, as soon as he is able to consult the source you give him. All researchers make errors. It is the willingness to continually improve and refine your work that distinguishes the best researchers. Heinegg has proven his value in this regard.Verklempt (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

More on Disputed Origins

Blood group frequeny analyses and other genetics tests were conducted in Robeson County on Lumbee subjects in the 1960s and published in an academic journal in the early 1970s. These showed that the Lumbees—biologically—were only about 10% American Indian, about 48% African, and 42% white or European in origin. That is pretty overwhelmingly non-Indian. Especially in consideration of the historical record.


 * I was under the impression that the scientific consensus is that there is operationally no biological sense of race. That is to say, even with the most sophisticated modern-day techniques, there is no way to biologically quantify race.  In other words, biological differences tend to group geographically, not racially, geography becomes a surrogate for race.  See eg. the review article: Marshall E., Science. 1998 Oct 23;282(5389):654-5 Cheers, D.F. Lowry

In the more than 110 years of scholars and experts researching the Lumbees’ history and culture, there is not one documented Croatan, or Cheraw or Peedee, or Cherokee, or Tuscarora ancestor to be found among the Lumbee--or if there is, the Lumbees have hidden it pretty well. And why would they do that? Yet, one independent researcher working only from the mid-1980s to the present has shown that Lumbee ancestors were migrating into Robeson County from various parts of Virginia and northern North Carolina between circa 1740 and 1810, and that they were of African and English colonial descent. This ancestral group was variously considered a lawless mob of free Negroes and mulattoes, and other reports state there were “no Indians” in the Lumbee area. Funny though, how Lumbees and their supporters just sort of shrug this off, play the “racist” card, suggest anyone who challenges them is ignorant, and argue that “Negro” and “mulatto” census designations really meant Indian, but that some secret scheme concealed that. If insisted upon, I can cite numerous sources. But I doubt they’d be read with an open mind anyhow because I’ve spoken with a couple of very defensive—to the point of hostility—“Lumbees” who just kept insisting I was wrong, did not know what I was talking about, had been misinformed, and dared me to “come to Pembroke and say that” intimating I’d be severely beaten or worse. For now, I suggest that Lumbee origins are not simply disputed, but quite hotly contested. An Indian ancestor or two? Sure, that is likely. I’d guess many other southern families could make that claim, too.

Lumbee ethno-genesis needs to be carefully scrutinized in the full historical context available; what I can see in the 1860s, 1870s, and into the 1880s, is a “mulatto” community rallying around opposition to be classed as blacks. I know of someone right now who, ironically, set out many years ago to prove to a nay-saying college professor that the Lumbees were a real Indian tribe, but who was forced by the overwhelming evidence encountered to reassess that position and ultimately conclude that Lumbee “Indian” ethnicity is the result of politics. “Indian” status was, apparently, at least better than “black” status. This political game continues today, with the Lumbees still pressing for recognition from the U.S. government for full participation in services reserved for indigenous treaty tribes. But the vast majority of Lumbee ancestors were not members of a native American nation, but immigrants—free and slave.


 * A response to the notion that federal "services [are] reserved for indigenous treaty tribes:" In Joint Tribal Council of Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, the 1st Cir. rejected the idea, prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s, that tribes that had not been the subject of some specific treaty were therefore unrecognized as tribes for the purpose of all federal statutes and programs. The court of appeals concluded that "the absence of specific federal recognition in and of itself provides little basis for concluding that the Passamaquoddies are not a 'tribe.'" Joint Tribal Council of Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370, 378n(1st Cir. 1975). Jas392 (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC) For a synthesis of the notion that a tribe does not have to have a treaty in order to be a tribe, see Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law section 3.02[6][b] (2005). Jas392 (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Language research seems to corroborate that the pronunciation of Lumbee English has roots in a Native American language. See for example Torbert “Tracing Native American language history through consonant cluster reduction: the case of Lumbee English” or Walt Wolfram, Becky Childs, and Benjamin Torbert, “Tracing language history through consonant cluster reduction: comparative evidence from isolated dialects.”. A reviews of both papers is available here. The papers shows how generation differences (Lumbees have come into full contact with mainstream American English only recently) in consonant cluster reduction (CCR) indicate that Lumbee English is evolving their CCR in a pattern typical for other Native American languages towards that of standard English. Some influence of African American dialects is possible but deemed unlikely by the authors. Wadoli Itse 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dispute? What makes anyone think that there is a dispute? Lumbees certainly don't dispute their own existence. I'd like to know though, what makes the person with the "origins" query an authority on Lumbee authenticity? Here's an example: "Lumbee" was not "made up" in the 1950s as he/she claims. A white Robesonian waxed unevenly eloquent in a song about the "Lumbee River" published almost one hundred years earlier though. Of course, the white Robesonian minstrel could have invented the term "Lumbee." There is always that possibility. Or, perhaps he mispronounced "Lumbee," for "Lumber" as someone irresponsibly speculated that Lumbees had done at some earlier point in this article's patching together. But then, the Carolinas are bogged down in water -- pocosins, swamps, creeks, rivers, you name it. And wouldn't you know it, many of the rivers end with "ee" -- Peedee, Santee, Wateree, . . . oh, and Lumbee.

The author of the paragraph above is obviously Lumbee and fails to look at facts, rather than the "made-up" history of the Lumbee. The LUMBER River was originally named "Drowning Creek" and has never been named the Lumbee River. The Lumbees took their name from the Lumber River in the 50's, when they sought Federal recognition. This "myth" of the Lumbee River is another pathetic attempt by the Lumbee to erase history and modify it to "fit" their plight for recognition. The Lumber River was duely named for the lumber trade that existed in the region, where lumber logs were drifted downstream, through Robeson County, on to various areas where they were sold and milled. Erasing history and modifying it to fit your scheme doesn't make it accurate history or right. The Lumbees would gain far more respect by accepting the facts previously (and correctly) mentioned in this article by its originator and stop the falsehood of "creating" legend and heritage that isn't there.


 * History of the term Lumbee: 1872: In "Life At The Beleaguered Town," New York Herald correspondent Alfred Townsend used the term "Lumbee" in chronicling the activities of Henry Berry Lowery.1888: Hamilton McMillan wrote, in a discussion of the geographical extent of Indians in North Carolina in the 1730s, "These Indians [had] roads connecting the distant settlements with their principal seat on the Lumbee, as the Lumber River was then called." (McPherson 1915:49)1874-1907 (Poet Lifespan): John Charles McNeil, poet and journalist from Wagram, North Carolina in "Sunburnt Boys" wrote "Down on the Lumbee river, where the eddies ripple cool…”1912: W. Lennon in the poem "Here’s To Lumberton" wrote “By the old Lumbee! Where the air is fresh and pure and free…”Circa 1930’s: Pembroke State College instituted the student organization known as the "Lumbee Society." 1940: The Lumbee Basketball Conference originated in Robeson County.1941-42: The first Pembroke State College yearbook was published under the title of "Lumbee Tattler."1951: The Robeson County Commissioners, at the request of Lumbee ancestors, conducted the first tribal election of a name wherein 2,169 tribal members voted for adoption of "Lumbee Indians of North Carolina" and thirty-five votes were received for the name "Cherokee Indians of Robeson County." 1953: The State of North Carolina recognized the "Lumbee Indians of North Carolina." Jas392 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Note: While I can't take credit for the research cites of 1872 through 1942 above, I will say that they are an apt response to the issues raised in the preceding paragraph regarding 'WHETHER THE LUMBER RIVER HAS EVER BEEN "NAMED" THE LUMBEE RIVER' and 'WHETHER THE LUMBEE "TOOK THEIR NAME" IN THE 1950s.'Jas392 (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then too, there certainly is nothing "conclusive" about census enumeration, both back in the day and now. I can remember the day when JFK was assassinated, the March on Washington, the Trail of Tears II, and the takeover of the BIA building in Washington DC, but I've only appeared on one federal census. Does this mean that I do not exist, or that I am only 6 years old? I was born and raised in the U.S. At birth, I was racially classified one way, and yet another classification was ascribed to me when I entered grade school five years later. My driver's license and social security card tell yet another story. So much for "conclusive" racial classification. Please refer to any one of a number of citations provided in the "references" section that address the historical complexity of racial classification in what is now the U.S.


 * I've even submitted a more historically accurate framework that historians and anthropologists use to effectively elucidate the historical processes that make the 16th, 17th, and 18th century Southeastern Native landscape in general, and ancestral Lumbees in particular more appreciable-- that of ethnogenesis. Moreover, I substantially added to a list of references, having found only five citations ostensibly intended to verify any and all claims that were being made in the body of the article. And yet, though all of this is much more than the person who posed the query has offered, this doesn't seem to be enough. Hmm. Those pesky double standards.


 * Well, how about the theory of origins offered by Hamilton McMillan. If McMillan's theory was a fiction, it was McMillan who chose to disseminate it in the 1880s. Nor was McMillan the first to endorse this theory, truth be told. Rest assured, none of the proponents of a "Lost Colony" theory who published their ruminations on the topic before McMillan were Native. And yes, ancestral Lumbees certainly used the "origins" theory to carve out a better political situation for themselves. But then, if you really want to address the creation and manipulation of "invented" traditions, why not take on the "discovery" of the "New World," "the first Thanksgiving," the Americas as "virgin land" and "wilderness," or one of the most popular of American fictions, "manifest destiny"?


 * On the other hand, many of the oral histories recounted by Indian families in the late eighteenth and early twentieth centuries have been verified by anthropologists, historians, and linguists. Even those anthropologists who were largely informed by the racialized science of eugenics and who came to Robeson County in the 1930s concluded that they performed their analysis in an Indian community. Mind you, some friends you just don't want to have. But even these "objectively trained" scientists that "origin" types love to cite believed that they were dealing with Indians. Throughout the 1930s, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, John Collier, the Collier administration, and one of the anthropologist that Collier sent to Robeson County, Ella Deloria, who just happened to be Standing Rock Sioux (is that Indian enough?) believed that they were dealing with Indians. Ella was not the only Deloria to visit Robeson County. Her nephew, the Native intellectual, scholar, lawyer, theologian, activist, and author of "When Custer Died For Your Sins," Vine Deloria, Jr., was a regular and beloved visitor to the homeland of the Lumbee in Robeson County.


 * The much more recent research of linguists and linguistic anthropologists is fascinating and extremely revealing. Those who are wedded to the notion of sole descent from African slaves and English colonials will be disappointed by their findings however. NC State, and Walt Wolfram in particular has lead research into the "origins" of Lumbee English. Those who have carried out their research on language transference and use pretty much agree that the pattern typical for speakers of other Native American languages who adopt English is replicated in Robeson County by Lumbee speakers who speak a dialect distinct from both whites and blacks. This is not to say that Africans and Scots-Irish migrants (Lowery, Oxendine, for example are not English names) did not intermarry with Indians in North Carolina. They did. But then, the Lumbee have never denied this either.


 * What has been denied Lumbees, not by the state of North Carolina, nor increasingly by other Indians who have had the chance to interact with Lumbees, nor the majority of academics, Native and non-Native alike who have focused their research on Lumbees or other Indian groups in the Southeast, is authenticity by those few individuals who wield the question of "origins" as a weapon of a much touted, if rarely achieved "objectivity." Not coincidentally, Indians situated east of the Mississippi are their primary target. There are those who hurl the racialized and detribalizing question of "origins" at non-State and/or non-federally recognized California Indian tribal nations as well. They are similarly charged with being peoples without "origins," and thus, fraudulent descendents of, in their case, whites and Mexicans, or more puzzling still, Indians. The ancestors of their particular oral traditions had long since been pronounced "extinct." They continue to be assailed by those who claim as "conclusive," multiple "extinction," and/or "vanishing" narratives generated by colonial administrations established to advance the settlement of non-Native peoples and document the erasure of Native peoples.


 * The Lumbee have chosen to meet their complex history as a Native people head on. For almost two decades, historians, linguists, sociologists, archaeologists, and anthropologists from UNC-Pembroke, UNC-Chapel-Hill, Duke, NC State, New York University, and Harvard University have worked cooperatively with the Lumbee on various aspects of their historical and contemporary experience. But more significantly, the Lumbee as well as other Native peoples feel there are far more important and urgent issues that need to be dealt with, such as land claims, water rights, fishing rights, religious freedom, the protection of sacred places, repatriation, and a host of others. Certainly, there are many Lumbees at the forefront of efforts that address these issues. Yet, how is it that I never see "origin" folks advocating for and fighting on behalf of Native peoples on any one of these issues that are far more relevent to the welfare of Native peoples the world over? Granted, this is a forum for those who opt to submit what they claim to know about a particular issue to an online encyclopedia. But then, having responded to your query, how about an answer to mine? Oh, and one more question: Who are you, and more critically still, what qualifies you to make pronouncements on, and question the authenticity of a people you seem to know so very little about?


 * Cheers,
 * LumbeeRiver 01:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks LumbeeRiver and Wadoli Itse for helping me to figure out why these demands for accountability viz-a-vis questions of authenticity trouble me so much. And, LumbeeRiver is correct to question the qualifications of someone who fails to meet their own criteria of accountability; someone who submits spurious claims and unverifiable information. Usually, people like this don't come from academic backgrounds, and even if they do, they fail to remember that well-contextualized, citable scholarship is necessary in an online encyclopedia entry. The statement, "the 1790 census pretty conclusively shows. . ." is an excellent case in point. LumbeeRiver apprehends the issue of racial classification in four concise sections, "History," "Post-Contact Rupture," "The Question of Origins," and "Ethnogenesis," AND provides extensive citations-- unusual in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. Did the person who initiated this discussion not read these sections first? Perhaps he/she did not understand these sections or their purpose? Or, perhaps, she or he understood all too well what it was that LumbeeRiver was doing? Something has to account for the query above and the number of irresponsible statements he/she makes that are clearly borne out of ignorance. For those of us who actually earned doctorates in areas like history, law, philosophy, linguistics, archaeology, sociology, or political science, and better yet, happen to specialize in the histories of given Native peoples or other ethnic groups, the specious statements made above are downright infuriating as well as insulting.


 * His or her brand of arrogance is the more egregious when it comes from someone who demands a call for "honesty" even as they create a "dispute" where none exists. The Lumbee are well known in academic circles and in Indian Country as an American Indian tribe, and yet as LumbeeRiver points out, most, if not all the American Indian tribes WEST of the Mississippi have fairly good, pretty neutral Wikipedia entries. None of us should, be we academics or not, suddenly lose the obligation to submit encyclopedic academic entries outside his or her field without being able to verify our claims. In going back to archived entries, "Bogdon," "Pokey5945," and "ProfBanks," are all guilty of making similar spurious statements without providing citations by current mainstream scholars who've actually gone to the trouble of conducting painstaking primary source research that they unfortunately see fit to cannibalize, misinterpret, misquote, and spin into a delegitimizing narrative. LumbeeRiver and Wadoli Itse have been more than accountable, both in their article entries and in their responses to this discussion page. Neither they nor the Lumbee have anything to prove.


 * ZIGGYC
 * 140.247.74.102 00:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Two and half years later, we are still dealing with the same "Wikipedia administrators" of the Lumbee page. There is clearly a conflict of interest when all of these credible complaints go unheard and the page still ends up looking the way it does - dominated by a narrow scope of the work done on Lumbee origins and slanted toward the notion that the Lumbee are not Indian, all backed up by only 3 controversial sources that were researching African American heritage and not Lumbee origins as all of the other researchers we cite actually were. Hmmmm is right! But I wont go away as easily as my friends from two and half years ago did. I'm here to stay until this page is a reflection of the voluminous work done on Lumbee origins. Jas392 (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: The Photo On This Page:  This is great photo of a member of the Oxendine Clan. Litcrit is worse than a Dumb Ass as he is really a Stupid Idiot Dumb Ass **** Racist that knows nothing about Lumbee Culture. 65.254.200.226 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC) ROBESONIAN LUMBEE INDIAN LUMBEEMAN

Re: The one photo on this page. This looks like a black guy or a half-black/half-white dressed in Creek (Mvsgvlgi)attire of the mid 1830s? How is this supposed to be "Lumbees" traditional clothes? Are the Lumbees in Ohion too? I know theres some in California that says they are Lumbee Indians of America. Litcrit 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This LITCRIT person is a total DUMB ASS ITIOT RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!! He shows this by making judgements on the color of ones skin in a photo on the internet. Come down to LUMBEE LAND Litcrit and we will be happy to show you all the beautiful Lumbees and our great culture and teach you something about who we are what we really looking like from the heart. 65.254.200.226 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC) LUMBEEMAN 07/09/08

Regarding the photo on this page. Litcrit you have no idea what you are talking about!!!! You know nothing about the Lumbee or any Indians for that matter. We all look different and have various colors of skin tone, hair color, eye color. Are the LUmbees in Ohio - what a stupid question. That is like asking if the Navaho are in Ohio? Of course they are - there are members of Tribes living all over the country working, going to school, stationed in the military, and so much more away from the original homeland of that Tribe. Don't even post if you are going to past stupid stuff. BLACKWELL - April 10, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.62.171 (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Litcrit is an idiot. He knows nothing about the Lumbee and makes a judgement on looks. Heck my father is very dark and pure Lumbee and my Mother is very light and pure Lumbee and I am and other family members are medium tan. So what. We are Lumbee!!!!!!!! 01/30/2008 from Lumbeebees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.59.82 (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lumbees of Pembroke North Carolina: We see that people like Litcrit know nothing about the Lumbee and again have to say that somebody is a certain race by the way they may look. Some of us are dark and some of us are light but that does not make us black or white or mixed or anything like that because we are still Indians and Lumbee. You and others need to not judge somebody by the color of their skin. Heck some white people are dark and some black people are very light. And don't forget that woman in England that had twins and one was dark (black) and one was light (white) - so what are they supposed to be? Huh? LOPNC 12/27/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.200.226 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Photo. It seems as though more people are worried about what Native Americans look like as opposed to who they are. There is no "Indian" skin color look regardless of what one thinks. Our race is full of various looks (dark hair, light hair, dark skin, light skin, thin, fat, high cheek bones, low cheek bones, etc and more). But there are certain characteristics of our race just as there are other races but skin color is not one of them!!!! Oxendine is a well known Lumbee name all over Lumbee Land. Lumbees live all over the United States and for that matter even the world. There is a large population of Lumbees in certain urban areas across the United States. I know that this Oxendine is dressed in South Eastern Regalia of no particular tribe but a combination of South East Reglais and afterall the Lumbee are South East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.201.143 (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think LitCrit's main issue with the picture, and it is a very important one, is the attire worn by the "Lumbee" is the traditional dress of a tribe that has no affiliation with the tribes the Lumbee claim relation to. I imagine most Lumbee are ignorant to the symbology and patterns that belong to the culture they are trying to imitate, and the guy in the picture just wore the best "Indian Costume" he could find.  12.40.5.69 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

LITCRIT’s main issue is that he or she is an total DUMB ASS!!!!. The lumbee in the picture is dressed in woodland clothes of the south east tribes and yes by the way the lumbee do have affiliation with several south east tribes including the creek, choctaw and even some cherokee (although they will not admit it), and by the way you are dumb ass for calling it an “indian costume.” Some lumbee could actually be registered with the creek if they wanted to as the mother is of that tribe but the father is lumbee and as you should well know most south east tribes are MATRIARCHAL. I will not argue with you that a great deal of lumbee know nothing about the clothing of a certain historical time period for them or for any tribe for that matter. But just as some of the lumbee are are ignorant if authentic indian clothing there are just as many that are very intellectual and know historically accurate stuff including many that have degrees in history and indian studies. Hell most of the indians that dress and attend powwows don’t dress in the clothing of their people. EXAMPLE: hundreds and hundreds of men from the south east, the south west, the north west and the north east tribes dress in grass dance of the plains and northern traditional of the plains. EXAMPLE: at gathering of nations there were lots of ladies from south west tribes like the navaho, etc and south east like the cherokee that were dressed in jingle dress and that style is indigenous to the great lakes. 65.196.201.234 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC) LADY LUMBEE APRIL 17, 2008

Famous Lumbee
Have you all ever heard of Tatanka...he wrestled in the WWF back in the 1990's...his real name is Chris Chavis.

I am moving the following to the discussion section until a more detailed account of famous Lumbee can be compiled. It is sort of irrelevant in such a short stub-like article:

"An example of a Lumbee who has made himself known in 'show business' is Anybody Killa, (Native Rapper for Psychopathic Rapper, both solo and a part of the sub-group project, Dark Lotus)".

Perhaps it would be better to more fully explain the Lumbee, those of you experts out there, than simply name one or two. --Tuttobene 02:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kelvin Sampson, head coach of the University of Oklahoma men's basketball team, is a Lumbee. He guided the Sooners to an appearance in the Final Four of the men's NCAA basketball tournament in 2002. --libertysooner

Clint Lowery (Formerly of Sevendust) and Corey Lowery of the Band, Dark New Day --lumbeecheraw75

Heather Locklear - Actress - Scottish and Lumbee Heritage. She acknowledged her father's side of the family were Lumbee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.1.158 (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DNA
With modern advances in DNA and genealogy, would it not be possible to take samples from present day Lumbee and Lost Colony relatives from European family trees? By doing this the controversy might be settled, or only extended.

Here is a link to a recent story on the approach of using DNA and genealogy together:

Samples from the Lumbee should be easy enough. Does anyone know if there are any identified relatives of the lost colony, that could be traced for a sample?

--68.255.239.192 22:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Best I could find was a link on archaelogy findings http://www.lost-colony.com/Buxtoncrew.html I did change the article a bit since it said there was no evidence while even the article on Roanoke Island mentions the evidence... mcm DNA Worldwide have genetic markers for "Lumbee Native American" taken from NCSBI. Isnt Heather Locklear half Lumbee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.240.32 (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

discrepancy regarding the klansmen description
There is a discrepancy regarding the klansmen description on this page and that on the page for 1958. One says there was 5,000 klansman, the other that there were a handful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958: January 18 - Armed Lumbee Native Americans chased off an estimated 5,000 Klansmen and supporters at the town of Maxton, North Carolina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumbee: On January 18, 1958, armed Lumbee Native Americans chased off a handful of Klansmen and supporters led by grand wizard Catfish Cole at the town of Maxton, North Carolina.

cleaning up a little
I hope no one minds if I just clean up the prose a little. I wont change or add information at the moment, though I hope to come back and do that too eventually. --Elizabeth of North Carolina 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Lumbee v. KKK battle
User:Tom by the Lumbee River, what is your source on the KKK and Lumbee numbers (and how heavily each side was armed) and the name of the KKK leader? Wadoli Itse 19:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Overlooks a Broad Corpus of Contrary Sources
This article is clearly biased towards the "Lumbee" position. Researchers should make reference to articles such as: Houghton, Richard H., III. “The Lumbee: ‘not a tribe.’ ” The Nation 257.21 (20 December 1993): 750 (Houghton was Counsel on Native American Affairs of the US House of Representatives from 1989 to 1994). For a full, academic treatment of the argument that the "Lumbee" do not qualify for federal recognition, see the dissenting views in: "U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources," Report Together with Dissenting Views to Accompany H.R. 334, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., 14 October 1993, H. Rpt. 290."
 * I don't see how two documents constitute a "broad corpus," but I do agree with you that dissenting views should be in here. Will you please summarize what is contained in these documents, instead of just citing them?Verklempt 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Majority opinions are more authoritative than dissenting views.he majority in H.R. Report 103-290 establishes that congressional hearings and studies since 1910 "have consistently concluded that the Lumbees were a self-governing, independent Indian community, descended from Siouan tribes such as the Cheraw." As for whatever is meant by "not qualifying for federal recognition," I'll take that to mean what the dissent in the Report was arguing for. But let's try to clean it up a bit by agreeing that In 1989, the Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs determined that the Lumbee Tribe is ineligible for administrative recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs federal acknowledgment process due to the 1956 Lumbee Act.Further, Lumbee leaders do not wish to proceed through the Bureau's process, because it has been generally regarded as an unworkable process. See United States Government Accountability Office Testimony (GAO-02-415T: More Consistent and Timely Tribal Recognition Process Needed; 2/7/2002)(GAO-02-936T: Basis for BIA's Tribal Recognition Decisions Is Not Always Clear; 9/17/2002)(GAO-05-347T: Timeliness of the Tribal Recognition Process Has Improved, but It Will Take Years to Clear the Existing Backlog of Petitions; 2/10/2005) and GAO Report (GAO-02-49: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recogntion Process; 11/2001); also see U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Hearing on Recommendations for Improving the Federal Acknowledgment Process (4/24/2008) where Senator Byron Dorgan, Chairman of the Committee, stated that "Some tribes are waiting twenty, thirty years [to be recognized], and that’s not right….there seems to me to be an unfairness in the system, and this is a serious problem we need to correct.” The dissenting views' position was that the Lumbee should go through the Bureau's federal acknowledgement process anyway. Jas392 (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
User:68.210.195.80, I appreciate that you are trying to improve the article, but you deleted several paragraphs of properly sourced material. If you wish to improve the article, don't do it deleting what's already there. I don't have time right now to go back through all your edits, so I reverted to restore the removed information.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Article Tag
Of course, we are all intellectually challenged. Even the editor who goes by the name 71.255.218.156. What this entity fails to recognize is that the version of this article that is posted now is so radically different from a version that was posted several months ago, that this alone raises a red flag. If the edits since May 2006 were as extensively cited as the previous material, 71.255.218.156 could make a case for a balanced revision of the article. But this is not the case. In all fairness, until 71.255.218.156 and other editors can successfully reincorporate and respond to the germane and extensive deleted material, the tag "Disputed Article" really does need to stand. Sloppy revisions of this kind is what makes Wikipedia both suspect AND a terrific albeit negative teaching tool for university profs. In explaining to history majors "what not to do" in my history writing seminar, I will be using this article as one of many "bad history" examples to be found on wikipedia, and why, as a matter of university policy, students are not permitted to resort to or cite wikipedia articles.Gallay 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted much of the older article. Why? Because it was POV, unsourced, and because the article exceeds the WP size recommendations. If you, Gallay, have a specific grievance, bring it forward here for negotiation. Your complaint above is too vague to be constructive.Verklempt 21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would bet the earlier version was much better than this piece of propaganda. The current version is definitely POV and racist. I have voiced my views and so far nothing has been done to remedy this. What gives this dude the right to take it upon himself to change an entire artice when even peons like me can see the flaws? Why are only certain people allocated the title of Wikipedia gods while the rest of us who do not have the power to change the article, have to suffer the consequences? The present article also has much POV with such vague statements as ... broad corpus of evidence to support that the Lumbee tribe are not eligible for federal recognition. And, there is no evidence to support the claim of being Native American. This article contradicts itself because later it points out the evidence that the BIA have determined on at least 8 occasions/visits that were are a Native American tribe. Swanton, Sider, Campisi, and other anthropologists, have presented strong proof of our Cheraw/Eastern Siouan heritage. Verklempt, can we have a bit of coffee talk? Have you ever been to Robeson County? Have you spent any time with the Lumbee people? Its like me popping up and saying I'm an expert and will write books about the culture of Java. If I am not part of that culture, I could never claim to be an expert. Me? I'm an enrolled member of the Lumbee tribe and am a direct descendant of King Robert Locklear, chief of the Cheraw nation. My grandfather and many other Lumbees before the 1970's were denied many rights of "WHITE" individuals. But, my grandfather and many other Lumbee fought their whole lives to be viewed with dignity and respect as Native people. Wikipedia is viewed by perhaps thousands of people a day. Its unfortunate that the Lumbee not only have to fight for their rights, but wage a PR battle about misinformation presented about us in media such as this. I also dispute this article. I will revise and respond in the future. Signed Arvis Boughman, author Herbal Remedies of the Lumbee Indians, McFarland Publishing, 2003.


 * Specific examples can be discussed on this talk page, and acceptable revisions worked out. I agree with you about the "broad corpus" statement. I requested that the editor who wrote that clarify his statement, but he hasn't yet. But beyond that, vague, sweeping complaints do not constitute constructive criticism. I disagree that there is strong proof of Cheraw ancestry. Sider and Campisi are not objective observers. They were paid by the Lumbee tribe to help obtain federal recognition. Swanton was making a wild guess, based on a few days of superficial research in encyclopedias.Verklempt 04:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Verk, can you cite any sources discrediting Swanton's work here on Lumbee? Otherwise Swanton's assessment will have to stand, because this violates the WP:OR policy. Jas392 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What kind of research are you citing, Verklempt, about Swanton et al. being encyclopedic anthropologists. Are you telling me respected anthropologists such as Swanton and Sider conducted their research by reading the encyclopedia? I'm sure the individuals at the BIA and Smithsonian would love to hear about this discovery. Please. Aside from that, Sider and Campisi conducted their research long before the Lumbee approached them as possible witnesses for the Lumbee federal recognition act. By the way, thanks for support on the "broad corpus statement". There's many other accusations/statements that need to be "fixed" in this narrative. Arvis
 * You can read Swanton's research notes in his collection at the NAA in Suitland, MD. His Lumbee folder is very thin, and contains mainly notes from the various books he consulted. His only primary source was the census, which cannot prove Cheraw ancestry. Sider was working as a political activist since he first arrived in Robeson, according to his own writing. I find his research unreliable, because he hides inconvenient data. For example when Sider reported the story of Preston Locklear's racist abuse of his own kin, Sider left out the names. Sider gives some unfounded speculation about the Lumbee Jones family being related to an Indian guy in SC near the Georgia border. Meanwhile, Sider doesn't report that the Lumbee Jones family descends from slaves in Anson County, NC. This kind of thing makes me skeptical of Sider. Can you tell me how Campisi was involved with Lumbees before the petition drive? My understanding is that he makes his living by consulting for unrecognized tribes. He's done a lot of them, and told a lot of whoppers in the process.Verklempt 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Swanton's research on the "Croatan" (1933) included maps (Herbert)and newspaper articles (SC gazette).  His rough notes about Lumbee surnames and oral history disprove your shoddy inadequate research assertions about Swanton.  You are also mistaken about only census information being used. Before Swanton, OM McPherson in Indians of North Carolina: Letter from the Secretary of the Interior 1914 assumed that the the Indians living in the Lumbee River basin were amalgamated with the Cheraw.  Ethel Stephens Arnett, historian and author The Saura (Cheraw)and Keyauwee Indians in the Land that Became. . . 1975 also supports this assertion. Finally, Frank G. Speck (anthropologist), in regards to oral history, in his article The Catawba Nation and Its Neighbors (1939) interviews the last Catawba language native speaker,Margaret Brown,  she states that the Croatans were once part of the Catawba tribe but left to avoid the plague (smallpox).  She is referring to the Cheraw which also are the forebearers of many modern day Catawba.  This fact is also confirmed by Lumbee oral history.  BTW where is the backup for your Jones' family assertion? In 1831, right before the Cherokee removal it was North Carolina law that a free Negro OR (I repeat OR again)  a free person of color who is convicted of an offense . . . could be hired out.  This law led to the tied mule incidents.  The majority of all Native Americans remaining N.C. in the 1830's were misclassified as free persons of color in 1831.  BTW, Sider as well as Campisi are well respected in the academic community. Are you? Vernon Cooper (Lumbee healer), the Chavis family, and the Locklear family etc. trace their lineage back to Marlboro County, South Carolina when the Cheraw sold their land and moved into Robeson County. Your accusations concerning  Campisi are again unsubstantiated as is much of this article. Tell me what other group of people than Native Americans have to substantiate their background.  Arvis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.149.228.13 (talk • contribs) Put four tilde makrs to sign your Wikipedia name properly.
 * You can research the Jones family's slave history in Anson Co records. I've never seen any documentation of a "tied mule incident". This seems to be an invention of Sider's, a story he heard that he never bothered to substantiate. That's another reason to be careful in taking him at face value. I'm not sure what your grievance is with this article. You haven't pointed out any specific errors in the article itself.Verklempt 16:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How many Jones' are there in the U.S., Verklempt, millions maybe? IF YOU ARE THE ONE THROWING OUT FALSE ASSERTIONS, HAVE THE DECENCY TO BACK THEM UP. IT'S NOT MY RESPONSBILITY TO RESEARCH YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE JONES FAMILY. IT SHOULD BE YOUR JOB, MR./MRS. "I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CHANGE THE WHOLE ORIGINAL ARTICLE BECAUSE I FEEL I AM THE ONLY LUMBEE EXPERT IN THE ENTIRE WORLD" person.  My great Aunt Mirilda Hardin was one victim of the tied mule incidents.  The law enforcement officials took all of her land.  I have several grievanaces with this article: 1) the broad corpus statement which we've already discussed 2) The statement, "While some SMALL degree of Indian ancestory is plausible. . ." 3) The inaccurate information presented by Heinegg and DeMarce  3) The omission that all remaining Native Americans after removal were misclassified as "free persons of color"  4) The blanket statement in the first paragraph that makes it sound like all Lumbee are a mixture of three races.  Eastern Native Peoples bore the first brunt of the European onslaught and yes even among the Cherokee and Seminole there is some "race mixing".  Yes there is some European and perhaps a bit of African American blood in some Lumbee.  But, I don't think its fair to lump us all in one basket. Arvis


 * We can document many government takings of land by courts for non-payment of taxes or other court costs. But I've never seen a single "tied mule" case documented. (2) I don't see a problem with the "plausible" sentence. You're not arging that Indian ancestry is implausible, so where's the problem? (3a) You don't say what Heinegg and Demarce have written that's inaccurate. These two authors hew much closer to the historical data than any other writer on the topic. (3b) Your claim here is simply incorrect, the Catawba and Cherokee tribes being two local examples to the contrary. (4) I agree with your concern about generalization, but to say that all Lumbees have Indian ancestry would also be an over-generalization. It seems to me that the current version is a reaonable statement of the historical facts.Verklempt 20:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This would also be a violation of the WP:OR policy, Verk. Jas392 (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Arvis
 * Do you think that in corrupt Robeson County land or law enforcement records would state outright that land was taken because of a contrived incident of a stolen mule, hog, or chickens, etc.? I'm sure politically correct terms such as tax debt etc. would be used in the official records.  If you know anything about Robeson County, you would know that coverup and corruption, especially by law enforcement officials, was the name of the game.  So my part of my "argiement (sic.)" on the "plausible" sentence deals also with the word "SOME" and "SMALL."  The Lumbee, presently on the tribal rolls, have to prove their descent from an individual on the pre-1900 documentation. The Lumbee, are cousins, tribally speaking, of the Catawba and Waccamaw-Siouan.  In any discussion about southeastern ethnology, it is not only unfair but discriminatory to single out one group for ridicule. If you are talking about multi-racial Native Americans, then the "argiements" do apply to the Cherokee and the Catawba.  I have worked among the Eastern Band for the past three years and observed the racial characteristics. So, my take on this truth would be "reonable" (sic.).  I disagree about with Heinegg and Demarce's statement pertaining to how the Lumbee are the result of the union between African American and European American.  Some Lumbees may have migrated down the great Native American trading road between Virginia and Charleston, SC.  Robert Brown, great grandson of Margaret Brown (Catawba), points out Robeson County was mid-way on this trading path and it would be a logical deduction that Siouan and some other Native refugee groups would settle in the shelter of the Lumbee River swamps.  I submit that in no way shape or form can Heinegg and Demarce's shoddy and inadequate research prove the Lumbees were the result of of African American and European American unions.  The surnames assertion by them is refuted by the fact that the names they mention are common names found in a large number over tidewater Virginia and eastern NC.  Where is your documentation negating the fact that "all Lumbees have Indian ancestry." I don't understand what your problem is with the Lumbees.  I won't even begin to speculate.  However, I stand by my original assertion that this article is HOGWASH and highly disputed.  If WIKIPEDIA really wants to put in an unbiased/quality article about the Lumbee, WIKIPEDIA needs to seek permission to copy the WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA's article on the Lumbee.  The World Book article contains no racial slurs, opinion statements, and is factually based unlike this piece of garbage.  I AGAIN DISPUTE THIS ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Yanire kida ya (See you down the road in the Lumbee trad lang.)


 * I don't see why we should throw out Heinegg and Demarce's research just because you don't like their conclusions. They have established the genealogical linkages to the extent the data permit, and in many cases their arguments are overwhelming. Reasonable people may object to one of Heinegg's genealogical links here and there, but the bulk of his work is nearly undeniable. There is no competing genealogy on the table. Even if there were, that would not justify removing any mention of such an established and honored work from this article.

I am detecting a whiff of the internalized racism that is so common among people who insist on vigorously denying any African or slave ancestry. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Lumbee ancestors are described as black, negro, colored, free people of color, etc., in every record they created prior to 1885. They also self-identified as one or the other of these terms in all of these pre-85 records. This is exactly why there is a controversy here. It's because there is a contradiction between how the earlier generations identified, and the generations since 1885. There is no such contradiction in the Catawba and Cherokee histories. If Lumbees were an Indian tribe prior to 1885, you'd think someone would have noticed, and that evidence would exist. It exists for the Catawbas and Cherokees.Verklempt 01:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Catawbas are a SOUTH Carolina tribe. Most remaining Cherokees were identified by the state as "free persons of color" That's my arguement. I've heard our elders state that there ancestors were afraid because of threatened execution of beatings to speak their language, hold their dances, and in any way/shape/form celebrate our culture. It wasn't cool to be Indian in the 19th century. Arvis


 * Just a few days ago you were claiming kinship to the Catawbas, and now you seem to be arguing that they are irrelevant because they live across the state line, only about a hundred miles or so away. That's silly. They are still a counter example to your false contention that all Indians were regasrded as FPC. Your claim that most Cherokees were FPCs is simply false. There is no evidence to support this, and all of the historical works on the Cherokees contradict your assertion. The Catawbas and Cherokees never had to hide their identity, so why should anyone believe that the Lumbee ancestors did? Are you saying that the Lumbee ancestors lacked the courage that the Cherokees and Catawbas had? I don't believe that.Verklempt 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Arvis
 * You miss my point entirely. In the 1830's most remaining Native Americans in NORTH CAROLINA were misclassified as free persons of color.  I don't know about South Carolina.  Verklempt, our people have never lacked courage, but in the 18th and 19th centuries, survival was the name of the game for Native people in the southeast.  Believe what you will. But, with entire tribes being wiped off the face of the map during this time period (i. e. Wateree, Cape Fear, Sugaree, Saxapahaw, Waxhaw, Tutelo, Mattamuskeet, etc.),and over 80% of North Carolina native peoples exterminated, hiding in a swamps, mountainous areas,and in fact hiding your identity was not only smart but necessary.  Even members of the Cherokee began dressing as Europeans, owning slaves,and operating as much like individuals of the Euro-centric society as possible.   Another note about the Cherokee. In the early 1900's the Eastern Band planned to disband.  The tribe decided to divide the 56,000 acre Qualla Boundary property among the individual tribal members.  A final census was taken but Congress permanently postponed the land division because members of Eastern Band claimed that over 1000 of the 3000 (@) enumerated in the final census tribal were not Cherokee (five dollar Indians).  Today, there are over 13,000 enrolled Eastern Band members.  Many of these descended from the 1000+ who paid to get their names on the rolls. BTW the same facts apply to the Western Cherokee whose rolls number in excess of 250,000.(New Geography of North Carolina, Sharp Publishing, Swain County, 1930)


 * Saying something repeatedly does not make it true. Your claim that NC reclassified Indians as FPCs cannot be substantiated. It never happened to the Cherokees. You have no evidence of it happening to anyone else in NC. If it were true, then there would be evidence of those tribes living in NC prior to the 1830s. But there is none. Lumbee ancestors are repeatedly described as negroes, black, FPC, etc. in all records prior to 1830, not to mention 1885. Why do you object to any mention of this simple historical fact in this article?Verklempt 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

to settle for this bunch of nonsense? If so, I will have lost all faith in this so-called encyclopedia. BTW, flag is attractive, showing the Lumbee gentleman in Eastern Siouan tribal regalia. However, that is not our tribal flag. See the Lumbee website. Arvis
 * Who removed the disputed article tag? Nothing has been resolved!!  The article is the same.  Is Wikipedia going


 * You haven't attempted to negotiate a workable resolution to your complaints. Instead, you vandalize the article by removing passages that you disagree with, even though they are well-documented. It's not clear to me that there is any real intellectual dispute here to be resolved.Verklempt 18:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * VERKLEMPT, I HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED TO NEGOTIATE A WORKABLE RESOLUTION. I VANDALIZE THE ARTICLE BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE READ THIS AND BELIEVE THIS HOGWASH.  I HAVE OFFERED DOCUMENTATION FOR MY SIDE.  WHY AREN'T THESE VIEWS PRESENTED IN THE ARTICLE? DO YOU HAVE THE POWER TO REMOVE THE DISPUTED TAG?  THE ONLY TRUTH I SEE HERE IS YOUR NARROW-MINDED EGOTISTICAL VIEW OF IT. THERE IS CERTAININLY AN INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT HERE.  I DISPUTE THIS ARTICLE. WILL WIKIPEDIA DECLINE TO PRINT BOTH SIDES OR SETTLE FOR MR. SNOOTY VERKLEMPT'S NARROW VERSION OF IT.   20 September 2006 ARVIS


 * It's not clear to me what views you want added. Your edits have involved censoring views that you disagree with.Verklempt 15:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First, Verklempt, I also disagree with Heinegg and Demarce. After the removal of the

1832, the south saw race in two hues, black and white. This holds true for Virginia, North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina. The Catawbas, remaining Cherokee, and remaining Choctaw, remaining Creeks (see Poarch Creeks) were all classified as "issue free", "free persons of color", "mulatto", etc.and never American Indian or Native American. The census takers simply assigned a race classification to a particular individual. By the way mulatto is a very American classification. It simply means mixed. Mixed native peoples or mixed European, it's really not clear. In Canada, they are called Metis'. In Mexico, they are called Mestizo(where the word Mexico came from). So, mulatto simply means a mixture (what mixture, who knows?). There are no historians to document the appearance of these individuals that Berry, Heinegg, and Demarce commented on. We don't know by what race/peoples the census takers viewed them because the alternate classifications did not exist. This fact is also backed up by the fact there are numerous tribal groups in Virginia such as the Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and Monacan that can document their history but were also misclassified. So, if Heinegg and Demarce's research was taken from census records of Virginia/North Carolina, then it doesn't hold water. Furthermore, if Heinegg and Demarce claims were true, would these African American descendents own plantations and enslave their African American brothers and sisters? Some Lumbee did own slaves and operate plantations. Even if there were African American or European heritage in this group, does it reduce the legitimacy of the Lumbee as a true Native people/tribe? I think not! I understand that Arvis is banned from making any further comments on this site. However, Arvis and I agree the Tuscarora documentation, the arguments rebutting Heinegg and Demarce, and the Siouan connection should be included in the Wikipedia article. In short, one of the strongest arguements in favor of the Lumbee is the fact that they have clung tightly to their "Indianness". Their tribal practices in healing/herbal lore, storytelling, singing, clannishness, etc. testify of their pre-contact existence as a Native people. If Wikipedia is truly in search of the truth, it should present both sides of an arguement, remove phrases such as "some SMALL degree of Indian ancestery is plausible," and present diverse views instead of the slanted one-sided views of one "anonymous" individual. 29 September 2006 Alumbo
 * The issues with the census and the Tuscarora hypothesis are already included in the article.Verklempt 16:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that the census takers took it upon themselves to categorize the race of individuals need to be mentioned in connection with the Heinegg and Demarce remarks. Because Brewton, Berry, Heinegg, and Demarce did not take the restrictive categories imposed by the state governments and census takers into account.  It was mentioned in an earlier version of the article about an individual named Chavis who did not self identify in a courtroom as Native American.  If Native Americans couldn't testify, how would they self-identify?  There is also a complete lack of documentation concerning the second sentence in the article pertaining to the Lumbee being a mixture of white, black, and Native American.  I still believe the "small degree of Indian ancestry" statement should also be removed.  It is simply opinion and not based in any documented source.
 * 5 October 2006 Alumbo
 * You didn't even read the article, much less the response to your last comment. Your observation on the census procedures is already in the article, has been for a long time. Furthermore, you don't have your facts straight. James Lowrie was not HBL's father, nor is there any evidence of him making the statements you claim he did in antebellum court records. In fact, he was dead already. The article should not include fabricated stories like this.Verklempt 22:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly did read the article and was responding to your last comment. Yes the

Tuscarora information is there but the census information should be listed along with the Heinegg information. Isn't that what drove their research? Since this is the article you wrote I should have realized that you are at least the authority in one area, "fabricated stories." Because, Arvis, I, and others are in agreement that this article is rife with POV and undocumented statements. A few of which are listed above. I deleted my earlier statements about James Lowrie. You were correct about that. Since the Lumbee weren't allowed to testify in court the quotation I was attempting to document was made by George Lowrie, cousin of Henry Berry Lowrie. At the funeral of his two sons he stated, "We have always been friends of white men. We were a free people long before the white men came to our land. There is the white man's blood in these veins.  In order to be great like the English we took the white man's religion and laws.  In the fights between the Indians and white men we always fought on the wide of white men, yet white men treated us as Negroes.  He are your young men killed by a white man." Now, I am getting choked up by emotion (Verklempt) This quote was documented in 1864. (The Only Land I Know, p. 49) The man who killed George's son was said to be buried in an unmarked grave lying north to south, "crossways of the world," rather than east and west as the Lumbees traditionally bury their dead. 6 October, 2006 Alumbo
 * 1) You really should read the article before complaining about it. The census observation you request is already in there, right where you want it, in the paragraph immediately preceding the Heinegg research. I've already told you this twice before, and I should not have to tell a literate person even once. 2) The source of the George Lowrie quote is Hamilton McMillan's pamphlet of 1888. He was not there in 1864 to hear it or record it. McMillan is not a very reliable source. 3) The man who killed George Lowrie's sons is a Lumbee ancestor, and is on the genealogy chart in the Lumbee petition.Verklempt 21:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're like Heinegg and Demarce, Verklempt. You weren't here when I read the article and

haven't even met me. Yet, you have the gall to state I am an illiterate and a liar. You are as predictable as drought in the desert. When someone challenges your assertion about African American lineage you bring up the race card. Also, when someone presents documentation of evidence which conflicts with your narrow minded view of the truth, you state that source is not reliable. Campisi, Sider, Swanton, and now McMillan are not reliable in your estimation. I admire these individual's credentials, but we don't know yours. I have more confidence in the known rather than the unknown. If you discredit McMillan because he wasn't there to hear George Lowrie's remarks, it proves my point about Heinegg and Demarce. I'll state again some of the problems I and others see in your article:

1) The statement concerning "SMALL DEGREE OF INDIAN ANCESTORY" This statement is POV, racist, and undocumented. 2) My illiterate point concerning the census information has to do with placement of this information. This information needs to be placed after the Heinegg and Demarce statements. Where it is now doesn't form a connect to Heinegg etc. information There is also no mention of other tribes in North Carolina and the southeast being misclassified as free persons of color. 3) The term tri-racial isolate is degrading and should not be used in connection with the Lumbee people. 4) The statement concerning "ALTHOUGH SIDER AND BLU TAKE SERIOUSLY THE LUMBEE CLAIM OF BEING NATIVE AMERICAN THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE FOR IT." Again this statement is POV, racist and undocumented. 5) The statement concerning "HOWEVER IN OTHER DOCUMENTS SUCH AS COURT RECORDS IN WHICH THE LUMBEE" (sic.) have the opportunity to self-identify. If the only support you have for this statement is the Chaver's case, it would stand to reason that if an individual could not self-identify for census records than he/she would not be able to self-identify in court. I've offered more documentation on the 1864 quote by George Lowrie than you have with this assertion. 6) The second statement in the article regarding Lumbee being a mixture of three races Once again point of view, racist, and undocumented.

It seems that you and Pokey think you can ignore any input submitted. It appears you have your own tyrannical kingdom set up here where views only YOU deem appropriate stay and dissenting views are dismissed. Thank you D. F. Lowry for your stand and your insightful remarks. It appears our only recourse is to appeal to the higher ups at Wikipedia to again have dissenting views included in this article. 12 October 2006 Alumbo


 * 1) Re "small degree", I agree that it is POV. Should we instead say that none of the core Lumbee surnames in Robeson can be traced to any Indian ancestor at all? 2)I don't understand your problem with the placement of the census techniques. It doesn't belong in the same para with DeMarce and Heinegg, because they hardly cite census data very much at all. Their arguments are based on colonial records.

3)Your problem with the word tri-racial isolate is your own. It is well-established in the scholarly literature. 4)Re "little evidence"--I agree that that adjective is POV. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "no documentary evidence of Indian ancestry." 5)Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that "there are no extant records prior to 1885 in whicch Lumbee ancestors self-identify as Indians." 6) You've got to be kidding. The Lumbee's tri-racial ancestry is overwhelmingly documented (excepted for the Indian part). Verklempt 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Maybe this 1st phrase needs to be removed altogether. There has been documentation here in the discussion section about Robert Locklear being King of the Cheraws in 1738 (Wall Street Journal/Timelines in history) There are also documented

quotes with George Lowrie (circa 1865) by McMillan that you refuse to include.2) Where would the colonial records receive their data? In part from census takers etc.? Once more, I think in connection with Heinegg and Demarce there needs to be a reference to the fact that all remaining Native Americans, in the southeastern United States after 1830, were misclassified as "issue free," FPOC, etc. 3) As D. F. Lowry so eloquently pointed out, "tri-racial isolate" is considered a derogatory term in many academic circles today. It is also offensive to the Lumbee people The documentation in the article concerning "tri-racial" is a bit underwhelming 4)(see 4 above) I think to replace one POV phrase with another is useless. This phrase concerning "little evidence" also needs to be removed.  If you decide to leave this phrase in, maybe you should consider moving the Charles F. Pierce, supervisor of Indian schools' comments, stating the majority of Lumbee were 3/4 quantum Native American blood (early 1900's), to the beginning of the article to present a more balanced view. The Pierce comments are documented unlike the statements I listed above.  11 October 2006  Alumbo
 * I've never seen a complete cite to the WSJ, and I don't see how that constitutes a reliable source on colonial history. 2) Heinegg and Demarce mostly cite court and land records. They rarely held a census in the colonial period. You're completely wrong about all Indians being changed over to FPC after 1830. That didn't even happen in NC, much less the entire SE. 3) I don't understand why tri-racial would be considered derogatory, unless some racist is in denial about his African ancestry.Verklempt 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I tire of this stonewalling. Regarding 'race' and modern scholarship, please see the AAA statement on 'race': http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm .  I personally don't care if I'm descended from a hyena, thats not the issue.  The article is still too one-sided.  Why is there no mention of the work of Gallay and the indian slave trade?  How is it decided whether the slaves uncovered by H&D's work are of indian or African origin?  The article still does not emphasize the scholarly viewpoint that these indians may have been wholly devoid of control of their identity.  They were, after all, not part of the hegemonic culture.  See, for instance, Bonita Lawrence, "Gender, Race, and the Regulation of Native Identity in Canada and the United States: An Overview", Hypatia - Volume 18, Number 2, Spring 2003, pp. 3-31, wherein the author seeks to demonstrate the settler government's control over indian identity in order to gain control over indian land.  DF Lowry
 * 1) I have no issue with the AAA statement, but it doesn't negate the reality and salience of racial categories in American history. It would be ridiculous history to pretend that race didn't exist for Americans. 2) Has Gallay documented any Lumbee ancestors? I've never seen any indication of that in his work. 3) When Lumbee ancestors are repeatedly described as "negro" or similar terms, it gives a fair indication of their social status. 4) The notion that Lumbee ancestors might have been Indians who were wholly devoid of control over their identity ignores the fact that numerous tribes on the mid-Atlantic coast retained an Indian ID, while the Lumbee ancestors never expressed one at all until 1885. Your notion of a totalizing conspiracy to de-Indianize Lumbee ancestors, one that lasted for two centuries and perpetrated by a variety of different political regimes, is simply ludicrous. It's certainly unsupported by evidence. And then to tie that nonsense into a settler state land grab conspiracy is even wackier, given that the Lumbee ancestors were part of the settler population obtaining colonial land grants.Verklempt
 * 1) It does not negate racial categories but underscores how they were used by the dominant culture to subjugate people, then and now, as with this wiki article. 2),3)  You haven't answered my question as to how the distinction is made between indian slaves and african slaves.  "Fair indication" is not good enough, especially when scholars have shown how native identity was regulated by white culture. 4)  You take a notion that is out there in the scholarly literature, ascribe it to me, and then call it ludicrous and wacky.  How do you know that this work ignores the fact that numerous tribes retained an indian ID?  The Lumbee ancestors were part of the settler population but they were less than white and suffered loss because of it.  See tied-mule, see confiscation of firearms.  I find it telling that some people love to discount a peoples' own account of their history and identity with documents of the WHITE culture, and still have the gall to hurl the 'racist' epithet.
 * 1) I agree that the dominant culture had more power in creating racial categories, but the notion that this article subjugates anyone is absurd. 2)3)This article explores the contemporary consequences of historical racism. If you're not satisfied with the surviving evidence, that's your call. 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. 4) You have a point. There is a lot of bad scholarship out there, and it is unfair of me to blame it on you. Tied-mule incidents have never been documented, and that's Sider's fault, not yours. Finally, the reason I discount Lumbee oral history is because they keep changing their story about what tribe they descend from. It's clear that they're making it up as they go along. Furthermore, none of the documented racial self-IDs by Lumbee ancestors prior to 1885 mention any Indian ancestry. That seems to be something that white Robesonians came up with and "imposed".Verklempt 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 0) This is my last response. I have dedicated my life to cancer research and must get on with it.  What have you dedicated yours to?  Delegitimizing indian tribes?  I won't continue dialog with an anonymous coward. 1)The upheaval of the more cogent ethnogenic Lumbee article curiously coincided with the Lumbees' latest bid to Congress for recognition.  You do the math. 4) The bad scholarship is your own.  I knew Rev. Doctor Fuller Lowry.  I am his namesake.  He gave me his timepiece and his quail gun a few years before he died.  Have you met him?  At 90 years of age he could recite the name of every single bone in the human body.  If I am to question his motive in the '50's, it is only humbly. The Lumbee people are obviously a coalescence of tribes, and this ameliorates, if not entirely negates your concern about oral tradition, unless you wish to keep pushing your racist agenda.  Its like the Alaskan Husky sled dog.  As a group, they are a multiplicity of identities.  Some are long-legged sight-hound crosses that win sprint championships.  Some are trotters that win 1000 mile distance races.  Some are heavy coated freighters, meant to maintain the trapline and sleep confortably at -40 degrees.  What you see as a weakness in our position, we see as a strength.  Over and out.  Dr. D.F. Lowry
 * The "Lumbees as coalescence of tribes" is merely the latest in a long string of shifting stories. It doesn't contradict my observation that the story keeps changing. It is just the most recent example of not being able to stick to the same story for very long. Your conspiracy theory about Wikipedia as a tool for undermining Lumbee recognition is pretty funny.Verklempt 02:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that the Lumbees are made up of various tribes does not constitute a shifting of stories. Most Lumbee concur that the Lumbee are made of Cheraw and related Eastern Siouan peoples with a few members of the Cherokee, Tuscarora, and coastal tribes included.  After the plagues of the 18th and 19th centuries killed more than 80% of Native peoples, many Native peoples coalesced into isolated swamps and mountainous areas.  It's amazing how much Catawba ancestory you find around Cherokee.  And yes Verklempt, the Catawba and the Cherokee were classified as FPOC in the 1830's.  I haven't seen you prove otherwise.  You state the Lumbee did not self identify before 1880's, why do you refuse to use the McMillan information.  You can look up the WSJ information on your own in Timelines of History/Robert Locklear on the net.  You also claim to agree that many statements in this article that you agree are POV but refuse to change them.  D. F. and I have tried to work with you, and you simply seem to enjoy running around in circles without changing a thing.  It's apparent it is useless to talk with you.  Maybe the officials at Wikipedia will agree that both sides need to be heard.  I agree with D. F. because it seems that you may be some kind of hired gun,as you claim with Campisi (unfounded), to undermine the Lumbee on the net.  The Eastern Band pays their lobbyist in Washington $20,000 a month in casino (that's the root issue) profits to undermine our interests and promote their own agenda.  Are you being payed that much? If not, you need to hit your bosses up for more money.  The Lumbee and Cherokee are starting to make some friendly overtures to each other, so you better work fast. :: Alumbo 29 October 2006
 * There may have been individual Catawbas and Cherokees who were described as FPCs in the 1830s, but that is simply not true for the majority. There is no evidence at all to support that argument. I've already stated why the McMillan story is unreliable--he was not there when the story purportedly happened, and he has made up other stories and is generally an unreliable witness. I've never seen a specific cite to the WSJ claim, and so I am unable to verify it.Verklempt 15:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not insult the integrity and motivations of users who disagree with you. Wikipedia does have a dispute resolution process, but ideally all concerned parties should have a username to keep the discussion in order. I'd like to see this resolved, but constant bickering on the talk page and deleting sourced information is not going to achieve that.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to see this issue resolved also. At one time didn't this article

have a disputed tag? What happened to this tag? Who removed it? When were or when have we ever been invited to settle this issue? All the Lumbee posters have been given for the last two months is the same old song and dance. We feel this is not some petty disagreement. We feel it is matter of the highest importance which impacts the way the general public views the Lumbee people (my people) as a Native American tribe. Verklempt has some kind of issue and hostile intention toward the Lumbee people and the only shoe that appears to fit is the assertion listed above. 29 October 2006 Alumbo
 * Please specify exactly which statements in the article are disputed, what you want to change, and what the verifiable evidence is for the proposed changes.Verklempt 15:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

-- An Observer

It is something to see how Swanton's own notes, Heinegg's two decades of primary source research, DeMarce's historical and genealogical examinations, and critique of Campisi's obviously non-neutral work can so easily be shoved aside by people who just refuse to address the big issues of the disputed origins here. It is so much easier to simply say the award-winning research of Heinegg, DeMarce, et. al., is "shoddy" and "inadequate" while ignoring Swanton's own notes, and claiming Campisi is "objective," than it is to actually constructively engage the mounting evidence--like local and state court records dating from colonial times right through the 1870s--that the Lumbee are an artificial construct of fairly recent origin.

My own decade of research into the source base--ranging from 17th century wills, to 19th century court cases, to 1960s genetics--led me to believe, after many years of denial, that the Lumbee aren't American Indians. If it is this article that is "hogwash," then please cite specific sources that demonstrate this. Please put up some evidence so that all parties can evaluate. Support YOUR assertions re: the Lumbee are related to the Catawba Nation; that the Lumbee do not descend from African American/Euro-American unions (in other words, post a documented Cheraw Indian that is genealogically tied to the Lumbee ancestral base); that "Some" Lumbees "may have" migrated down the Virginia-Catawba Trading Road or any other trader's paths; your assesment that World Book's Lumbee entry is more factually accurate than this Wikipedia piece, even after all of its edits, corectives, and sourcing. My reading of the comments here has led me to conclude that if something written is supportive of Lumbee claims then it is unbiased, good, and honest, but if something written takes issue with or questions Lumbee assertions, then it is racist, inaccurate, or opinionted. I am going to check this World Book entry to see how it is sourced, and what research is cited.

What awards did Heinegg and Demarce win for their research? The silver sow award for that bunch of hogwash? The names they cite are frequently used names in eastern NC and Virginia. Mr./Ms. Observer, please do take a look at the World Book article. At least it documents Lumbee history without being derogatory or biased in either direction. Look at the 1930's "so called" genetics testing in connection with the Dawes Act. The BIA came AGAIN to Robeson County to "test" the quantum of Indian blood of our people. They thought they could determine who was 1/2 or more NA by measuring teeth, foreheads, etc. Full brothers and sisters were tested. One sibling would make it the other would not. Anyhow, somehow it was concluded that of the 200 tested, 22 were full bloods or at least 1/2 quantum (THE ORIGINAL 22). The BIA backed out of their promise to provide services to these 22. BTW, what genetic testing was available in the 1960's? Verklempt, is that you? If it's not you it must be or a brother in spirit with the claims of being a top Lumbee researcher and all of the unsubstantiated allegations again. My gracious!!!!! Arvis

Discussion on racial classifications of Lumbee/Tuscarora/Cherokee/Catawba ancestors and the Tuscarora Hypothesis
A comparison was made earlier between the racial classifications of Lumbee/Tuscarora (Robeson County) ancestors and the racial classifications of the Catawba and Cherokee ancestors. It was argued that with exception to a few individuals (who I would assume were located away from their respective tribal communities) that the Catawba and Cherokee ancestors were generally classified as Indian while Lumbee/Tuscarora (Robeson County) ancestors generally were not. At face value this makes for a pretty strong argument that Lumbee/Tuscarora (Robeson County)ancestors weren't Indian. At face value everything seems to be wrapped up in a nice little package here.

However, under an open minded, realistic, and unbiased analysis of the situation (not to mention the obviouse, which can currently be observed by anybody with a set of good eyes who's willing to make a visit to Robeson County) it will be seen that such logic is not nearly as solid as it may seem at a glance. It is an accepted rule of thumb within any scientific or intilectual experiment/observation that one must make absolutely sure that different test subjects or groups do not have varrying circumstances affecting them before any conclusions are drawn about them.

What this means is that scientifically, intillectually, and logically it is rediculous to make an argument based on conclusions reached from a comparison between groups whose histories played out in entirely different ways.

The Catawba and Eastern band Cherokee were always known to be Catawba and Cherokee in part because neither of them ever scattered away from their respective homelands indefinately (or perhaps some did and history forgot them?). Although the Easternband scattered briefly before collecting themselves, and many Catawba went to live with the Cherokee at one time before returing home, their histories and the history of the Lumbee/Tuscarora is still not the same.

It is true that the remaining Cherokee, the Catawba, and the remaining Tuscarora (at least some anyway) were all ultimately placed on reservations when everything was said and done(at least according to accepted history anyway, but that's another subject); but that is where the similarities end. The Catawba and Cherokee "BOTH" either remained on what was designated Catawba and Cherokee land or made it known where they were going whenever a large group of them went elsewhere, while the vast majority of the Tuscarora nation did not!

It is also essential to note that there were no lists or rolls made of Tuscarora families in North Carolina (making it virtually impossible to trace back to a person listed as Tuscarora), estimates of population were made, but unlike the Cherokee and Catawba (who weren't generally placed on lists until the 1800s anyway) with exception to a limited amount of transactions signed by a handfull of Tuscarora leaders (many who had white surnames) there is "NO SUCH LIST OF TUSCARORAS IN EXISTANCE FOR ANYONE TO DOCUMENT BACK TO (as this all happened throughout the 1700s)!" So to imply that it is impossible for someone to be Tuscarora because they can not trace back to such non-existant rolls/lists/census's is a rediculously invalid argument.

Before I continue farther it is important that certain folks are made aware of a few other important facts about "TRUE" Tuscarora history beforehand, because certain statements above and other statements in the "Tuscarora Hypothesis section" make it absolutely clear that there are certain so-called editors who are completely ignorant of the actual facts here.

It is estimated that roughly 3,000 Tuscaroras survived the Tuscarora war. When everything was said and done roughly 800 ended up in New York or Grand River, as many as 500 scattered up the coast or went to SC, and just over 100 remained on what was left of Indian Woods (the Tuscarora reservation on the Roanoke River in north eastern NC) by the early 1800s when the reservation was disbanded. That leaves us with a total of roughly 1400 accounted for Tuscarora in the history books and roughly 1600 "unaccounted" for Tuscarora in the history books (as in: over half) who dissappeared between 1715 and 1760 (at least from reservation land anyway)!

Records (see Blounts petition in the 1750s for a good example) show that the Tuscarora on Indian woods were continuously abused, harrassed and robbed of their lands from the get go (not to mention that many did not consider the state appointed leaders to be their true leaders). Taking this into consideration and comparing it to drastic statistical drops in population over the years (the largest recorded one being about 600 in a 2 year period during the mid 1700's with no record of them ever going North) it's easy to see that these folks did not stay on the reservation but scattered to the regions round about it or perhaps in part to less settled lands farther south (some as early as 1715 as the early records are very vague and don't even come close to accounting for the total population) with many attempting to obtain their own land and settle in a fashion acceptable to white society and in many cases probably even intermarrying with local non-Indians.

Thus a large portion of the Tuscarora nation (over half in fact) would have been considered detribalized as they were not living on tribal land and some were probably mixed bloods with at least one non-Indian living in the household. Thus to any census taker around "they would not have been seen as Indians (don't ask don't tell, remember that the Tuscaroras sacked Bath, New Bern, etc... not really a very popular thing to be claiming in colonial North Carolina)" they would have been seen as some other kind of "CIVILIZED" brown people. They would have been classed as or looked upon as Mullatos, Mustie's, Mustezes, mixt bloods, free person's of color, other free, etc... and more than likely would not have objected to being labeled in such generic ways (ironically enough, just as most Lumbee ancestors were labeled)! This is illustrated further by the fact that there were known to be over a hundred Tuscarora remaining on reservation land when it was disbanded in the early 1800s yet there were no Tuscaroras listed in any census (there were some mullatoes, other free, etc...many having distinctive Lumbee surnames) taken of that area after it was no longer "LEGALLY INDIAN LAND!"

Although it has been blindly stated time and time again on here that most Lumbee/Tuscarora (Robeson County) families originated from Virginia, that simply "IS NOT THE CASE! (read the discussion on Heinegg and Demarce below to understand further). The "FACTUAL" truth of the matter is that the vast magority can only be traced with certainty back to the counties that adjoin the Roanoke River in eastern North Carolina.  "Some (keyword here)" do have partial (another key word) lineage that goes back to Virginia, but that is it!  A large majority of the families that now make up what many refer to as the Lumbee appeared in the records without a trace in the Roanoke River region within 1o to 20 years after the Tuscarora reservation was established there (take the Locklear family discussed below for example).

So basically there are roughly 1600 unnaccounted for Tuscarora's in the records, history shows that the large magority of them (and others who had not yet removed north) would have been living somewhere in the viscinity of the Roanoke River by about 1715, history shows that by the late 1750s only about 300 were "ON RESERVATION LAND," history shows that most (who were not on reservation land) were not classified as Indians, and legitimate genealogical research has proven that the vast magority of the famillies who make up what we now call the Lumbee (who are indisputably of at least some Indian origin and who were racially classed in the same fashion that any un-reserved Tuscaroras would have been classed) actually originated from the Roanoke River region at the same time in which there were numerouse un-reserved/undocumented Tuscarora families residing throughout that area.

Not to mention that once in Robeson County The first writings as to Robeson County Indian origins all state that the people came from the Roanoke river area (as modern geneological reasearch also shows when properly read) and also that their indian origin was solely Tuscarora (blood quantum is another discussion all together) with one account going so far as to even portray oral history in Robeson County as being identical to recorded history on the Roanoke (i.e. General Gorman who stated c. 1875 that Tuscaroras in Robeson County moved from along the banks of the Roanoke River about a century prior due to encrouchment from the planters, he did mention also that they miscongeniated with some non-Indians...but then again we all know this to be true and blood quantum is not the issue at hand just yet anyway).

My point for the time being is that racial designations don't mean squat in this situation and statements infering that only a handfull of Tuscaroras remained in North Carolina or that "MOST" Lumbee ancestors came from Virginia need to be removed from the article!

Personally I believe that the Lumbee are by far primarily of Tuscarora descent, but I do not expect anyone else to feel the same just because I say so. What I do insist upon is that this article include all the facts and that it present all of them in an equal and unbiased way so that the readers can reach whatever decision they so chose based on accurate, complete, and unslanted information! There is still way to much POV (in many cases borderline bigotry) within this article!

It's a known fact that most indian nations have a considerably large non-Indian influence mixed into them. Why certain individuals keep subliminally insinuating that since there is more African blood than the norm in Robeson County Indians than in most other tribes that they are less or illegitimate I don't know? I mean there are 12,000 enrolled Eastern band Cherokees (many with as low as 1/16 blood quantum) and only a few hundred who are fullbloods. I've been to Catawba as well and it is very apparent that most of them (some do look Indian) are even more mixed race than the majority of the people in Robeson County. Why is it that folks cite how super Indian these nations are without pointing out how mixed race they are at the same time? Why are they not harrassed and degraded in the same fashion as my people? Where do you people get the contempt and hatred that you posses? I mean going all out of your way like this to slander a people that you obviously have such a serious lack of knowledge about. And why is it that you aren't confident enough in your words to sign your name to them? I am staking my reputation on what I say (some of which does not make me popular even amongst my own people), why aren't you self-proclamed experts willing to do the same? Bobby Hurt 04:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

These are good questions Bobby. I don't have the answers but Arvis and myself have speculated that this is a paid smear campaign. I don't know why the main antagonist will not sign his/her real name, I can only guess that he/she/it is scared, a coward, unable to stand behind their convictions. Or it could go deeper psychologically. Perhaps he/she/it comes from a race that basically laid down in submission before the threat of genocide and did nothing to defend themselves. Perhaps he/she/it is simply jealous of our will to survive and will to fight for that survival. We may never know. The latest is the ignorant appeal to Pollitzer's work. While his work was groundbreaking in the field of Physical Anthropology, it simply came too early. He should have used as many genetic loci as possible and should have used cluster analysis to determine the classes rather than an a-priori assumption of three race components. Too early and too naive. The work of the esteemed Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has shown that there is no meaningful genetic determination of race. The genetic variation within a so-called race is often greater than that between so-called races. It is operationally meaningless. A response from our antagonist would be interesting but ignorant, given the level of misunderstanding of basic genetics seen in the main page. I do not expect an intelligent response is forthcoming.David F Lowry 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that personally I'm not really much of an expert on racial genetics and what not. I did take a few biology classes in college and I understand a little about genes, alleles, and what not but thats about it, so I'll just let you handle all the technical stuff on this one..LOL!

I am curious though (perhaps our antagonist can answer this for me?) as to whether all of these people were 100% Lumbee (or what many now refer to as Lumbee) on all sides of their family? I would also like to know if the charts were given of the family trees of the Cherokees (who, being politically correct and everything are, a definate bi-racial isolate...you know considering that 95% are part white and everything) and the Seminoles (who according to the same politically correct logic that certain editors seem to insist upon so much are a definate tri-racial isolate) used as the control groups in this experiment?

On another note (getting back to the historic racial classification thing) I'd like to tie this discussion into something I stated below about the Hammonds family. It is essential that certain folks take note of the fact that the term Mullato was used to desribe a person who (in the same sentence) was said to have no African blood in them! I mean...if the term always meant that a person had to be part black, how is it that it was used to describe a person who was known not to be? Even more intiresting is that the term was used in conjuntion with the word mustees (a mixed blood Indian) in a manor indicating that both terms could be used to descibe the same thing!

Also, there is another instance (in Heinegg and Demarce's work) where 3 Jones' and 3 Chavis' blatantly described themselves as being Free Persons of Color (that means Black right?....or does it? Hmmmmm!) and then went on to state that "THEY WERE COLORED BY INDIAN BLOOD! So it appears that they didn't object to being called FPC even though they regarded themselves as being indians......Could we be on to something here?

Another intiresting example involving the Carter family is how a brother and sister were classed differently. One was classed as a Mustie (mixed blood Indian)in the Clinton area while the other was listed as Mullato in the Robeson area.

and the list goes on...

Like I said earlier, racial designations didn't mean squat back then! Perhaps certain editors should start re-thinking some of their positions and start analyzing things in a realistic context? Enough of this tunnel vision crap..its getting played out!Bobby Hurt 04:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lumbee origins
This dispute is ongoing, I think it's high time for an RfC. It seems the origins of the tribe are disputed, with some accepting that they are an authentic Indian tribe, and others believing they are a more recently developed multiracial community with no real tribal history.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I submit that the latter is clearly is the minority position and, as such, should not merit a place in the Lead or a dominant position in the body of this page. Jas392 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We know who we are and really don't need "so called" experts to tell us. BTW the tribe has been state recognized since 1888. In 1956, we also received partial federal recognition which allows us to pursue funding for INDIAN education and INDIAN housing. We are members and have leadership positions in national organizations such as NCAI (National Congress of the American Indian) and NIEA (National Indian Education Association). Again, we don't need "SO CALLED EXPERTS" to classify us. WE KNOW WHO WE ARE. Thanks, Arvis


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Hi, I studied the Lumbee once in my pre-wikipedia days... Here is a vital website with concrete evidence linking the Lumbee with the Lost Colonists... The Virginia Dare Stones are also inscribed in ELizabethan English, and the Lumbee were discovered by later colonists in the 16th and 17th centuries already speaking broken English, practising Christianity, and going by the surnames of the supposedly "lost" Roanoake colonists! However, I appreciate that there has been a substantial coverup of these facts by those who don't like to admit to such things... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * Those who do not think we have a tribal history, do not really know us!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.149.228.13 (talk • contribs)


 * There is no way that Wikipedia can resolve this issue. Our role is only to document (with proper sources) the disagreement. Rmhermen 15:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to see some of the Lumbee sources. What tribes are they related to? What language are they supposed to have spoken, and what is the evidence for it? What groups or entities recognize them as Indians? Obviously having white or black ancestry, to even a large extent, does not disqualify someone from being an Indian, but what is the evidence for the pre-Columbian ancestors of the Lumbee?--Cúchullain t/ c 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)