Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 11 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Language reworded for recognition of tribes
Published Friday, March 12, 2010
FRANKLIN—Legislation to extend state recognition to two local Indian tribes has been reworded but is expected to pass before the General Assembly adjourns on Saturday.
The Senate agreed to amendments to two pieces of legislation — joint resolutions H.J. 32 and H.J. 171 — during a voice vote on Thursday. The bills extend state recognition to Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia Inc. and the Cheroenhaka (Nottoway) Indian Tribe of Southampton County, respectively.
Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke) had the amendment attached to the two bills. The amendment states that the General Assembly “does not confirm, confer, grant, or recognize any rights or privileges, including any vested or non-vested rights to property real and personal,” to the tribes.
“It’s had several amendments,” Chief Lynette Allston of Nottoway Tribe of Virginia Inc. said Thursday of bill H.J. 32. “They reworded some sections and it was adopted again today.”
Allston said other modifications included having all references to the “Commonwealth of Virginia” changed to the “General Assembly.”
“Some of it was just simply formatting,” Allston said. “It’s more wording than anything else.
Asked if she thought the House would pass the amended bills by Saturday, Allston said “Probably. The Senate one is all finished. It was just a matter of making sure all the language was comparable.”
Similar legislation has already passed both houses of the General Assembly for the two tribal groups. Joint resolutions S.J. 12, introduced by Sen. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth), and S.J. 127, introduced by Sen. Frank Ruff Jr. (R-Clarksville), both passed the Senate by votes of 40-0 on Feb 16. S.J. 12 then passed the House on Feb. 26 by a vote of 91-5, and S.J. 127 passed on the same day, 89-7.
Both of the advanced bills contain language that state the General Assembly “does not address the question of whether the (tribes have) been continuously in existence since 1776,” and also the legislature “does not confirm, confer, or address in any manner any issues of sovereignty.”
The Senate agreed to House amendments on both bills on March 2.
“All of the bills conform to the same language,” Allston said.
Chief Walt “Red Hawk” Brown of the Cheroenhaka (Nottoway) Indian Tribe of Southampton County could not be reached for comment Thursday.
A third Indian tribe, Patawomeck Indian Tribe in Stafford County, received state recognition when the House passed bill H.J. 150 on Feb. 18.
Eight other tribes have been recognized by Virginia: the Pamunkey and Mattaponi in the 1600s, the Chickahominy, Eastern Chickahominy, Rappahannock and Upper Mattaponi in 1983, the Nansemond in 1985 and the Monacan Indian Nation in 1989.
The three tribes will receive seats to the Virginia Council on Indians, a state committee that in May rejected recognition for Nottoway Indian Tribe Inc.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by sweetpie (anonymous) on March 13, 2010 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"“It’s more wording than anything else."HMM, sounds more like watering down.These folks ain't really Indians, are they?At least there seems to be a question in the "Commonwealth" which, in reading between the lines, isn't recognizing them.Maybe they have a distant ancestor which was a Nottoway and now are only, as the expression goes, "playing Indian"?
Posted by StandingBear (anonymous) on March 13, 2010 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Would like to see the bylaws of the Southampton Nottoways explained by Brown, among other items, he and Ellis are elected for life. Didn't know that Indian Tribes were dictatorships, at least this one is. And, why does he insist on calling the other Nottoway tribe the Tribe from Surry as their membership is all over the state, into NC, just like his is? Why can't the two groups get along? No wonder the "wording" had to be inserted by the State Legislature. This has all been a waste of tax payers money in all directions.
Posted by jt6 (anonymous) on March 13, 2010 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does this mean that there won't be a casino? Darn, looking forward to the tax revenue for the county. But wait, he wanted the Indian recognized status to avoid taxes and any difficulty like the Sedley Social Club faced. And, his tribe won't be able to claim land in this county and remove that from the property tax role. Sounds like someone is looking out for our county, and it isn't Supervisor/Chief Brown.
Posted by callingdove (anonymous) on March 13, 2010 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nottoway Indian had no Indian school, church, or other organization unlike the 8 tribes recognized by the Commonwealth. The Nottoway people have not existed as a group into modern times (from the 1880s onward), a historic fact. Modern fiction is a Cheroenhaka tribe.
Posted by truthseeker (anonymous) on March 13, 2010 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How can it be called a recognition with all the amendments added to it by the General Assembly to water down the recognition? How can they call themselves a tribe when they did not have to prove their lineage nor have they lived together as a tribe? CAN they prove their kin to ancient Nottoways? I bet the 8 recognized tribes were deeply hurt by these recent "recognitions."
Posted by turningpoint (anonymous) on March 14, 2010 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The watering down of the recognition for the two Nottoway tribes, which used to be one group, is a blessin for Southampton County. This is a questioning of the lack of geneaological proof that has not been questioned by the Board of Supervisors. Obviously, questions are finally being asked. I, too, believe the "Indian movement" relates to the illegal Sedley Social Club and the desire to have a private club for its members. Senator Louise Lucas has been made a fool of for a second time.
Posted by marks (anonymous) on March 14, 2010 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If there is only an interest in recognition as a matter of pride, then enough has been granted. If there is any interest in monetary gain, casinos, and more ... then more we will hear from these two tribes. However, as a taxpayer, I expect genealogical proof and a solid trail to modern times (such as a Nottoway school in 1920s) before complete acceptance be allowed. Seems like the 8 established tribes in the Commonwealth had to produce this, but not the Nottoways. Furthermore, why are there two groups?
Posted by jt6 (anonymous) on March 14, 2010 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Several folks couldn't deal with Brown running the show anymore and created their own tribe. If you check the Southampton Co Gov records, Brown said the other group was in Surry and was not eligible for any money as a nonprofit in Southampton like his tribe. he perks of being on the Board of Supervisors. Both tribes have members in all counties and in NC, and beyond.
Posted by marks (anonymous) on March 16, 2010 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like there is a power struggle going on between these two groups and I hope Southampton Co, home to both tribes, does not favor one group over the other. We, the tax payer, will have to pay for dual 'whatever' is requested by one tribe to be fair to the other. Ouch, my pockets are not that deep, is anyone's? If the two groups can not get along, then we need to stop expecting for the taxpayers of Southampton to continue the favors given to the Board of Supervisor's tribe. We don't have this luxuary of playing favorite tribe, bad example to our children. And, our children need the tax money more than two childish groups.
Posted by truthseeker (anonymous) on March 16, 2010 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand how tribe members don't have to have any genealogical ties to the Nottoways yet the group remains a tribe. It also is confusing that the chief claims to be elected for life. What happens if the two groups merge? Why don't they police themselves and kick out those without Nottoway blood?
Posted by branchoffthetree (anonymous) on March 17, 2010 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As long as one's surname is Turner, they can be accepted as Nottoway Indians (one of a long list of surnames granting membership without genealogical proof). Good thing the amendments were attached since this is such a common name in our county, for non-Indians. Such a shame that children don't honor their parents and have grown up to claim "Nottoway", instead of the ancestry their parents told them they are. Why are we "playing Indian" in this county? Is a casino so needed that any trick to get one is tried?
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)