Talk:Ramapough Mountain Indians/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Noopinonada:

I challenge you to find any shred of evidence contrary to my statements here. I'll even make it easy for you. On the tribal website (http://www.ramapoughlenapenation.org), the evidence referenced here and more are available online. I have opened the library for your perusal. No need to log in. As I find more, I will post them. You put too much weight into the BIA decisions. These are the same people who gave the Oaklahoma Delaware their federal recognition, took it away when it was convenient for them, then reinstated it. How can you be "identified" as indian, then not, then so again? For us it has always been about the threat of opening a casino, nothing more. Take your blinders off. Ramapoughnative (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Wait, what? I made a single random edit to this page to a single word. Your rambling accusations and challenges are pretty weird, as I have not engaged you in ANY academic discussion regarding ANY of your claims, and quite frankly I have no interest in discussing you or your claims, because this article is at the rock bottom rung of my interests. Keep plugging away at posting nutty accusatory comments like above and below, maybe someone will be bored enough and respond. I especially found your comment below, "I think it's very arrogant of anyone to assume just because i'm Native American, i'm less educated than you on this subject" fairly indicative of your insanity, because no editor had been arguing with you over any content or much less spoke to you here, nor even brought up your claimed ethnicity. You're just taking shots in the dark, I assume. Keep up, and enjoy, I suppose it helps with boredom. --Noopinonada (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't insult me by playing stupid. You're the one in an edit war with me last year and called my work "high school like". You used IP address 76.237.194.246. (yes it points back to you!) August 12th, 2009.. remember now?! Obviously, you're the one who's bored and have a short term memory. You must be imbalanced, you keep coming back for more. Next time you think about making more idiotic comments here, do me a favor and don't. This page is for discussion on the subject, not your personal attacks. Next time use my page for your foolishness. Ramapoughnative (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your stance is pretty hypocritical. You began to use this talk page to call me out. You even created a subsection with my user name. Therefore, you broke your own rule of "This page is for discussion on the subject, not your personal attacks." I have never been involved in an edit war during my entire time on WP, and I have been editing (sporadically) since 2004 first anonymously and now with my username. Nothing "points to me," as the IP address at the place where I usually edit is not your aforementioned. The first (and fateful, it appears) contact I've had with you has been here sometime this year, after I made a random, single edit to the main page. I can't even remember what it was that I edited. However, based on that edit, you began a diatribe and attack on me (and the world, it seems) as if I was some expert or frequent editor on this subject and knew your whole personal history. Regardless of your paranoia that editors are blending together and sockpupetting in an effort to undermine you, it's clear from this talk page that you do indeed get into edit wars, insult and attack editors, make false claims of "racism" and generally troll and act as an owner of this page, besides not contributing positively to WP. I suggest you imitate the abilities of the most recent editor to this page, User:Djflem, who cleaned up this page and made it look respectable and super-interesting. Perhaps parlaying that into editing other pages would make others take you seriously. However, if you care to keep this discussion on your strange character traits alive, I'll probably stop by here again in a few months to respond to your nonsensical rants at the world while I enjoy a nice latte at the internet cafe. Cheers, --Noopinonada (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Close Relationship

Per wiki rules defining "close relationship"

"The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse. However, an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject."

I am not the tribe's "manager", nor the tribe's "spouse". I am a registered, card carrying member of the tribe. I am one of the tribes historians and know our family history. I have read many books created by your people about my family. What makes any of you think you will know more than me about my family? I think it's very arrogant of anyone to assume just because i'm Native American, i'm less educated than you on this subject. Ramapoughnative (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comments

These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.

The best way to improve this article is to leave it alone. I have been researching my ancestors and as I find information of value to add, i will. People who write their racist comments should not be tolorated.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimMillerJr (talk • contribs) 13:42, 25 February 2010‎ (UTC)

Integration with Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas#Northeast Woodlands & new articles needed

I saw, way back in the long discussion on this page, a mention of THIS people's lineal connection to the Pomptons, the Hackensack, the Tappans, the Minisink, and the Ramapoo. Minisink and Hackensack lead to disambig pages:

• The fix on Hackensack people is Hackensack (Native Americans).
• The fix on Tappans people is Tappan (Native Americans).
• The Minisink disambig page has a Minisink Archeological Site, but apparently no article yet on the Minisink (Native Americans) people, so that oughtta be written.
• There does not yet appear to be an article on the Pompton (Native Americans) people either, so that oughtta be written too

Please check out Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas#Northeast Woodlands, (where there is indeed a link to THIS article page), and show me if I'm correct about where these other peoples fit in too. I've moved Ramapough Mountain Indians tentatively into the Munsee linguistic group of the Eastern Woodlands. Maybe you can help clarify that, iron out some duplications, or resort some of these properly. I just culled from all the Wikipedia pages outlining each people's linguistic roots and integrated each into the existing and growing framework there. Duff (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the changes you're suggesting. Changing the name to either would be acceptable to me :) I have more information on the Ramapoo with a map of their village from the 1600's as well as a map of the Ramapough village in Mahwah done in 1710. It also shows the Green Mountain and the Pompton villages. This map is housed in Hackensack County Bldg. As far as the breakout articles on the Tappan, Hackensack, Pompton, etc. I can assist on that and also provide some docs supporting we were one big tribe. The names given were given by the Dutch, not what we called ourselves. It is all in the history books and verifiable. I'd be willing to work with you on this.

Ramapoughnative (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Music about the Ramapoo Indians

I have an Amberol Cylinder record dated 1911 with a song called "My Ramapoo - An Indian Novelette". The recording is here.

http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/search.php?queryType=@attr%201=1016&query=the+ramapoo&num=1&start=1&sortBy=&sortOrder=id

These were recorded in Manhattan's "Tin Pan Alley" in the late 1800's - early 1900's.

http://www.authentichistory.com/diversity/native/music/part2.html

Ramapoughnative (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Close Relationship"

When will this close relationship banner be removed? I have asked for anyone to find any shred of evidence to refute the facts I have here, but as i knew, no one can find. I have tons more evidence to prove who we are AND statements from BIA members who know the decision to reject us was based on politics, not on evidence. I think I have submitted more then enough data to backup my statements. I even found and added the map that proves we were known of since 1710! Sarah Kiersted built a trading post to sell things to us. Funny how the BIA chose to ignore this key piece of evidence. Now it seems as this last gasp of opposition is to label the work as slanted. Who will finally step up and fix this injustice? If I delete it, it'll just be put back on a day later.

Ramapoughnative (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess no one.. so i'll delete it.. Ramapoughnative (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mann vs. Ford

I just heard about the recent HBO documentary Mann vs. Ford which describes how the RMI and residents of Ringwood, NJ were effected by superfund sites. I have yet to watch this film, but perhaps other editors might add some relevant information. I had not heard about this situation before. Some info: [1] [2] --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Chris! I can write up a summary about the movie but it will be somewhat difficult because this involves more than just the Ramapough.

Ramapoughnative (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven, I hope you are well. I still haven't watched the film, but maybe someday. If you want to start the Mann v. Ford article, feel free. There is an existing article for the superfund site at Ringwood Mines landfill site, and I found some related videos from northjersey.com on youtube: [3] [4] [5] It sounds like the superfund site may be at least worth a link from this article. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional articles here [6]. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure Chris.. I'll work on that.. Happy Holidays! Ramapoughnative (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Using adjectives such as 'noted scholar' to describe sources

Herbert Kraft is a "Noted Scholar" and is recognized as such by anyyone who has studied the Delaware people of Ny, Nj and Pa. "Dr. Herbert Kraft, Professor Emeritus and curator of the Museum of Archeology at Seton Hall University, died on October 31, 2000. Dr. Kraft devoted 50 years to the academic study of the prehistory of the Delaware River Valley and was an acknowledged authority on the Lenape/Delaware people." http://www.nps.gov/dewa/historyculture/upload/cmsstgKRAFT.pdf

"The late Dr. Herbert Kraft was a renowned scholar of the archeology and history of the Lenape Indians of New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey." http://www.amazon.com/Dutch-Indians-Quest-Copper-Pahaquarry/dp/0935137025

His work is the basis of all Lenape studies in New Jersey. I have reverted it back..Perhaps you'd like to do some research on him first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The point isn't whether he is a notable scholar (I'm aware of who he was), the point is that by describing him that way you are not only making a judgement on his work (which is not our role) but that this looks like Argument by Authority. We have an article on him and people can make their own judgements. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making the claim but others are, including my people.. and he is recognized as such. As stated in WP:Verify - "Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article." Herbert C Kraft wrote many books and is recognized as one of the leading resources on the Lenape. He is recognized by Nora Thompson Dean as an expert. She is a Delaware Indian. They authored a book together.

"'The Lenape Indian A Symposium Remembrances of the Big House Church' by Herbert C.Kraft, Nora Thompson Dean, Marshall J.Becker & Linda Poolaw" Book Description: Archaeological Reseach Center, New Jersey, 1985. Paperback. Book Condition: Good. First American Edition. 4to - over 9¾" - 12" tall. Large Trade Paperback 82pp.Signed and dated by the Editor. A dozen Essays by Native Lenape scholars like the brilliant Nora Dean Thompson whose essay on the 'Big House Ceremont'and another on 'Lenape Funeral Customs' and Euro-Americans like Herbert Kraft and James P.Rhonda. http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/author/marshall-dean/signed/ also "The late Dr. Herbert Kraft was a renowned scholar of the archeology and history of the Lenape Indians of New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey." http://www.amazon.com/Dutch-Indians-Quest-Copper-Pahaquarry/dp/0935137025

Department of State NEW JERSEY HISTORICAL COMMISSION AWARDS OF RECOGNITION 1978 Herbert C Kraft http://www.state.nj.us/state/divisions/historical/Word%20documents/Call%20for%20nominations.doc

Per policy .. it is published as such and unless you can refute it, leave it. Ramapoughnative (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the way it was written. Not trying to get into a revert war but look at the references provided. Don't arbitrarily just revert it back without researching. You will see this is not "puffery". He has won awards by the State of NJ for his work. "Noted Scholar" is how it is published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me add one more reference.. "Herbert Kraft, professor of anthropology at Seton Hall University and one of the world's foremost experts on the Lenape Indians." http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/24/nyregion/way-before-the-turnpike.html Good enough or do you want more than the New york times? thanks! Ramapoughnative (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Taken to WP:NPOVN#Are statements for a sources notability POV?. Dougweller (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

how can winning awards from the state of New Jersey and authoring over 170 articles be considered POV? Now you just want to argue and not being rational. Ramapoughnative (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC) You are just reverting and not discussing the issue. I am trying to resolve this in good faith with facts and meanwhile you are just reverting and pointing to a process. I say it follows the process. It is not Puffery when I point you to facts. ie the state of New Jersey and his 170 articles on the subject. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_C._Kraft

WP:RS states - "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Read the links above. WP:Verify states - "Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article." I have given links to the sources. WP:Manual of style states - "an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary" Once again, I refer you to the links given above. the state of New Jersey nor we, as the subject, commending someone for their work is considered "puffery". I have followed the rules and I will revert it again and report you both for vandalism. Neither one of you are yielding nor willing to discuss the issue. Ramapoughnative (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

For guidance on words and phrases that Wikipedia considers puffery and how to avoid such problems, consult Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms#Puffery. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Should the article say anything about religion (or any other aspect of culture). Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess we could add something but it would be a whole section unto itself. I don't know of any other tribes listed in Wiki that talks about religion. Usually speaking about religion and/or politics cause issues.. :) Ramapoughnative (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A number of infoboxes do, as does Hopi (I don't think you could write an article about the Hopi without mentioning religion), Ute people, Navajo people - I won't search more right now. Several articles are linked[7] to Four Mothers Society and more to Native American Church]. It may be that most of the group are now Christian of course, so maybe there isn't much to say. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a sticky subject because we have had much resistance to our open air ceremonies from the State of NJ. I was raised Dutch Reformed and over time moved away from that thinking after reading about the atrocities. A religion where they espouse "all men are equal in the eyes of the Lord" and then historically do something else is hypocritical. Let me check into it. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Propose Rename and another article on Ramapoo

Ramapough Lenape are descended from the indigenous Lenni-Lenape peoples, both Munsee and Unami, right? I propose renaming THIS article to either Indigenous people of Ramapough Mountain, or Ramapough Lenape also commonly known as Ramapo, Ramapoo, and Ramapough, etc., and splitting out a separate article on Ramapoo or Ramapoo (Native Americans) or Ramapoo people or whatever the favored moniker for the Ramapoo was. I'm pretty sure there's no claim to ancestry of India, so "Indians" in the title is misleading, derogatory, and factually incorrect. Blame Columbus, but straighten me out there if I'm mistaken. Duff (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm clipping the following two points of discussion from my own talk page to this one, where consensus (either support or oppose) may develop, since it may be contentious (or not, so far not): Duff (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and i like your suggestion. The Ramapoo of Connecticut also have alot of history. I have a copy of a map showing their village. I also have a copy of a map showing the Ramapough Village in Mahwah in 1710. I would like to work with you on this, if possible. ramapoughnative1

69.242.43.243 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

When could we make this change? Ramapoughnative (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

From a previous discussion, I import this dialogue: Though Hackensack (Native American) would seem more PC than Hackensack Indians, neither seems necessary. Why not just Hackensack, as most groups of people (Cherokee, Swede, Wappani, Irish and African-American) are described? In any case the Lenape nation, in most of their materials also refer to themselves as Delaware Indian. It is unclear how the Bogota website can assume an tributary people (in other words ones that were absorbed into other tribes) would know what the preference would be?

In addition to general respect for the preference of the original peoples of the United States, PC or not, we also have a reliable source that seems to support the non-use of "Indians". As Hackensack is already a disambiguation page, as it probably should redirect to Hackensack, New Jersey if it goes anywhere and as few people would assume that Hackensack is the article for the tribe, I think that it would be hard to justify the removal of some term to disambiguate the tribe. If there are modern reliable sources that refer to the "Hackensack Indians" we should take that into account, but the term is problematic. Alansohn (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

On the website: http://www.delawaretribeofindians.nsn.us/ it appears that some Lenape refer to themselves as Indians. Whether these particular people can claim descendency from Hackensacks is unclear. Though I do not necessarily like the term Native Americans in this context, the argument for keeping it, namely to make it distinct from other Hackensack entries, suffices to let it stand.```` http://members.tripod.com/~lenapelady/deltreaty1.html is another site in which contemporary Lenape refer to themselves (as Indians)Djflem (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.nanticoke-lenape.org/Djflem (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• from:Native American name controversy

Many of those who are covered by the term strongly prefer "American Indian" over "Native American". According to the US Census Bureau, as of 1995 50% preferred "American Indian", 37% "Native American", and the remainder preferred other terms or had no preference. The term has also been contested by some non-Native U.S. citizens, both for the perception that the name diminished their own status or rights (anyone born in the US could be called a "Native American"), and also as part of the general backlash against "political correctness", for which the term was often cited as an example. However, there is a growing consensus that either term is correct and that the terms may be used interchangeably. However, many now prefer to be designated by their specific tribe. Djflem (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wouldn't know how to go on this name change as other goups mentions are none existing. I really beleive self identification should be the most appropriate. It seems that to the and federal has been Ramapough Mountain Indians, no?

Djflem (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say then we should go by how the tribe identifies itself now. "Ramapough Lenape Indian Nation" is how we are known by our people. Just as some of our ancestors were called other names at different times - Achkinhenhcky, Rumachenanck, Tuphanne and Minsi, we are now known by THIS name. Ramapoughnative (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

They were formerly known as the "Jackson Whites", but are clearly not entirely White and carry some African-American/Black ancestry, whom carried a weight of indigenous and pre-U.S. heritage. But I heard some numerous myths of the Ramapo(ugh) Mountain people have some Gypsy or preferably Roma origins and the Ramapo lived a semi-nomadic rural lifestyle for the last four centuries. There is some chance of Asian (i.e. Moor, Arab, Turk, Indian, Malay or Filipino) ancestry in a number of Ramapo(ugh), descendants of prostitutes, "sex slave" and "brides" taken by long-distance seafarers or sailors, and possible Circassian beauties were taken to the Americas across the Atlantic via Europe in circuses and exhibits. And one known detail of the Ramapo(ugh) is some of their maternal ancestors could come from: Women from "West of the Andes" for single young men, but they married and took them with their children into the hills of New Jersey in the start of the 19th century (1800?), and the Andes as in the mountain range we all know may be a reference for South America, thus the Ramapo(ugh) can be called the "Lost Latinos" or "Hispanics" of North America, with Spanish/Portugese and mestizo (Amerindian) ancestry. The legacy of the Jackson Whites or Ramapo people, was of somewhat mysterious if not always seedy origins, and whether or not the percentage of their maternal ancestors were taken as solicited brides or were captive/volunteered in the underground prostitution worker trade, further adds into the ethnoracial mystery of their geneaology. 71.102.3.122 (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this site about "myths and rumors" or about fact? They are just that, myths and rumor and have no bearing to the truth. We are neither descendents of slaves, Hessian soldiers, nor prostitutes. This lie has been debunked. Move on. Ramapoughnative (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Some NJ cites, apparently with agreement by the tribe, refer to them as the Ramapough Mountain Indians, as in the NJ Senate bill designating seats for them on the to-be-established American Indian Commission; in 2010 Census materials, they are called the Ramapough Mountain Tribe.Parkwells (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sentence in lead "The Ramapough ancestral language was Munsee"

I think we have to remove or revise this claim (which is what it is). It implies that there was actually a cohesive ancestral Ramapough tribe althoug the group apparently has mixed ancestry: Kraft for instance says "some are descended from local Munsee-speaking Indians" (note the word 'some'). The current group seems to have varied ancestry and thus varied ancestral languages. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Read Nj recognition of our people. ACR3031. We are recognized as the descendents of the Iroquois and Algonquin Nations. What language did you think we spoke before 1st contact, english? Why do you think our cousins, the Munsee Delaware are helping us to regain our language? "The Ramapough are engaged in an effort to revitalize the Munsee language (also known as Lunáapeew) , spoken by their indigenous ancestors of the New York and New Jersey areas. In the past several decades Munsee has survived as a living language among sister tribes in Canada." http://www.ramapoughmunseelanguage.com/index.html This site is hosted and maintained by the Munsee-Delaware of Canada. Ramapoughnative (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you do not know the dynamics between the languages of Munsee and Unami nor the origins of Ramapoo (Ramapough), I'd advise you read up on it before you start making changes. Our tribe has been a blended tribe since the beginning, as all tribes are. Actually there is no such thing as a tribe to us. This is your word for us. We are considered a Nation and comprised of many local families of indians (tribes) - we have been called Ramapoo, Pompton, Hackensack, Tappan, Raritan, Kiakat and a few others. We are all one in the same after the invasion of the Dutch. Ramapoughnative (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

None of this speaks to the claim "The Ramapough ancestral language was Munsee". Yes, some members of the group had Munsee speaking ancestors. The article quotes Kraft who says "some are descended from local Munsee-speaking" - which means some are descended from non-Munsee speakers, right? Are you saying none spoke Unami? The lead is meant to reflect what the body of the article says. The article doesn't make this claim. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And drop the insults. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no insult given except the fact u are questioning me about what language my family spoke. Not everyone on the mountain are Ramapough Tribal members. Unami and Munsee are so close in language, they can be understood by one another. Do you know the difference Between Munsee and Unami? Would you know how to tell the difference? No because neither would I. Krafts statement is true to the best of his knowledge because this territory we are in is part of the Munsee territory. Munsee was also spoken in Manhattan and Staten Island. The line of delineation is an imaginary one. There were no defined boundries of what is Unami or Munsee. This line was defined by the Dutch and they contradict each other. We on the other hand don't see these lines since we were all related, migrated and traded amongt ourselves. The prevalent language was Munsee. We also had people mix from Connecticut/ New York (Pomptons) who spoke a form of Quiripi, yet a 3rd dialect. The difference is one is an 'l' dialect and the other is an 'r' dialect. Both are considered close to the Mohican language. Ramapoughnative (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Munsee and Unami are not the same language according to reliable sources (and our articles on them). Eg The Languages of Native North America - Page 590 byMarianne Mithun "The Delaware speak two closely related Eastern Algonquian languages, Unami and Munsee." The article could probably benefit from a section on language, but the lead needs to make it clear that the ancestral languages included Munsee and Unami, and from what you say, Quiripi. Do you really have a problem with this? So we could say "Ancestral Ramapough languages include Munsee, Unami and Quiripi." You know, you have been insulting me and others, eg "What language did you think we spoke before 1st contact, english?" Please, this won't get us anywhere. None of the other editors are trying to wreck the article or insult the Ramapough nation, we are all, you especially, trying to make it a good article. You agree it needs some rewriting, let's all work together to improve it. But we have to do it following our policies and guidelines and through dialogue and showing good faith towards each other. Dougweller (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. agreed. I do want to make it better and keep it accurate. I have had opinionated people in the past who have been pretty harsh to our people and I guess my defenses come up quickly. I agree the rewrite is better but we are not Delaware, we are Lunaape. The Delaware are "cousins" but not the same. We are distinctly different. The Quiripi was blended in by the Pomptons. Chief Ponus' family controlled most of the land between western Connecticut, southern New York and northern New Jersey. Tapgow was Ponus's son and Chief Catonah's uncle and he signed many of land deeds in Connecticut and northern New Jersey. I have the references and will be adding it to Catonah when i get a chance. Ramapoughnative (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what rewrite you mean, but do you agree we can replace the current lead sentence with "Ancestral Ramapough languages include Munsee, Unami and Quiripi."? Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

After speaking to the Chief, he says our ancestral language was Munsee. Even though we may have employed other languages to communicate over time, our native language was Munsee. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I really want to work with you, but we really need to use what we call here reliable sources. Have you read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS recently? Now I agree that Dutch was used, and we have sources for that, but can you find some sources for language that fit our criteria? It does seem to me that like a number of other Native American groups the members of the Ramapough nation do not have one unified ancestral group speaking just one language. We already have Kraft for "some are descended from local Munsee-speaking" - does he say anything about other ancestry? Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It will be a few while I assemble all the data. The Ramapough are a blended tribe with possible members from the Esopus and Tappan who spoke Munsee, the Hackensack, who spoke Unami and the Mattabesic/Wappangers/Pomptons/Metoac who spoke the Quiripi dialect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esopus_Indians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackensack_tribe (Also see van valen reference in ramapough article.) Tappan Indians have been known as part of the Ramapough. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/01/100301fa_fact_mcgrath Pompton Indians references found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompton_people There are possible other tribes associated with us too. http://www.google.com/custom?domains=dickshovel.com%3Btolatsga.org&q=ramapo&sitesearch=dickshovel.com&sa=Search&client=pub-1494076880688186&forid=1&channel=5528479881&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&flav=0000&sig=rFwVboCuDdLwS8jn&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1&hl=en

I will assemble more soon. Ramapoughnative (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Roger joslyn

and before you ask.. here is the link. http://genealogicalforensics.com/Genealogical_Forensics/About_Us.html Ramapoughnative (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the "About Us" page on a business' website really considered a reliable source for much of anything? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Needed to change this.. genealogicalforensics.com is a genealogy website. The 'about Us' section explains who is working for them. They are professionals. Ramapoughnative (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also the letter submitted by Catalano to the Newspaper was not opinion but facts. It was a response to an OP-ED piece. I have submitted my evidence. Besides spouting WP:whatever.. post something useful that disputes my links. Also, the other reference was from the BIA and listed as part of the FOIA to the public. If you can't trust a government reference then what can be? Ramapoughnative (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Needed to change this.. genealogicalforensics.com is a professional genealogy website. The 'about Us' section explains who is working for them.

I appreciate that Catalano had professional standing, but his and Plache's piece was published in the Opinion section of the paper. Also, as they are being paid to legally represent the tribe in their dealings with the BIA, according to WP, they are not considered an RS in the same way as academic scholarship.Parkwells (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

RamapoughNative and I hope to rewrite the article, any suggestions or help will be welcome. We both agree it needs work, and we both note that what Wikipedia says in this article can have a real effect on the people described and that as we should remember that while writing this article.

A comment was posted at NPOVN which I'm copying here as it's useful:

Ramapoughnative, I'm straying a little from the NPOV noticeboard purpose here, my advice would be to focus on the structure of the historical section. If it began by describing, in its own words, rather than lots of quotes, the mainstream, modern view of the Ramapough Mountain Indians's origins pre-1790, you'd have a good couple of initial paragraphs. You could then explain that there are differing views about whether there has been continuity in the group over the entire period, especially 1790-1830. You could then neutrally describe Kraft and Pritchard's position - that there was continuity - and Cohen's view - that there wasn't. Many of the other named individuals in the section could probably be reduced to footnotes or eliminated altogether (e.g. Pierson, who doesn't seem very significant in the debate). This would set the scene for the Bureau of Indian Affairs application section, although perhaps cleaning up the structure and perhaps reducing the long quotes a bit? You'd then have a neutral article, but which captures (if I'm reading the material in the article correctly, I'm not a specialist) the point that a majority of the academics agree with the continuity argument. Hchc2009 (talk) 8:24 pm, 2 June 2012, last Saturday (4 days ago) (UTC+1)

I think that the first thing to do is probably get some agreement on structure, an outline of the article. I guess we could look at other articles such as Cherokee, Hopi people, Seminole, etc, but also at Saponi people, MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians, Monacan people and others in the category Category:State recognized Native American tribes (which is incomplete, I just added one). Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the examples you recommended and they should be ok. I could start off with the pre-1790 but there not much documented. How we came to be in New Jersey is mostly oral. As i mentioned before, I have references about Catonah who was Chief of the Ramapoo in Connecticut, a blended nation and his Grandfather Ponus controlled most of North Jersey, Southern New York and Western Connecticut. Catonah's uncle Tapgow signed many treaties in all 3 territories including the land in Connecticut and where we are now. Tapgow also signed the Treaty of Easton in 1758, signing away the remaining land north of the Raritan River. (never ratified by Congress). The early 1700's shows us living in the Ramapo Pass and trading with Blandina Kiersted Trading Post but by 1755 we are written about as living in the mountains. Ramapoughnative (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing I did notice about the other articles, not every line has references. How the Ramapough articles came to be the way it is is because for awhile everything I added either had to have a reference or it was reverted. I see the others are not so. Ramapoughnative (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly because anything controversial must have references, maybe some of them just aren't up to standard, eg Monacan people which really needs referencs.. Undocumented oral history of course can't be used per WP:VERIFY. Dougweller (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I will work on something and email it to you for perusal.. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Still working on it.. I have more information to incorporate so it will be a little time before i have something tangible. Ramapoughnative (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

November 2001

The changes made that states we had Native American ancestry is not what the BIA quote states. (it says "recognized as Indian", not "Indian ancestry") There has never been an issue of if we had ancestry as many Americans today claim Cherokee ancestry. We are Native Americans, mixed bloods, the same as 90% of the other Native American Nations in the US and Canada that are Federally and State recognized as such. Thank you Ramapoughnative (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Noted. I agree that there have been problems in outsiders' interpreting cultural identity and drawing their own conclusions as to ethnicity; that is, some European Americans thought that because American Indian groups became multiracial, they were no longer Indian. Many communities have proved their cultural continuity.Parkwells (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

General comments

I would agree with comments earlier on this page that long quotes should be summarized, including those of Roukema. This should not appear to be trying to make the case before the BIA, (and similarly does not need the long quote by the BIA in their final finding), but summarizing material about the Ramapough Lenape Nation, including conflicting ideas about their identity. The BIA decision does not affect how they think of themselves, but it shows the limitation of existing records, or the BIA's interpretation of them.Parkwells (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The article needs to be recast in prose form. I was hoping to find time but so far other things keep getting in my way. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Have started to work on editing - also reorganizing to keep historical information/references together, reduce unsourced POV (e.g., the BIA ignored eyewitness accounts...), as well as adding new material on current events related to the tribe and state interaction.Parkwells (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am also working on the history of our people in the formats shown by Dougweller from other Nations. The is no limitation of documentation. As you can see there are plenty of references to the identity of the Nation. I'd be happy to work with anyone on it and I have an extensive library of old books from 1st contact to the early 1900's in an online library. These books were collected from other sources like Google Books whisch is also online. They are available to anyone who wants to reference them. Thewre was no reason to tag it as a dispute. 68.37.160.173 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

comments above were from me Ramapoughnative (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, good point. I'll remove the banner.Parkwells (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete minor references

Have deleted some minor early references about historical presence of Indians in the area. This article is not the BIA petition, and each historical reference about that aspect of the people's history does not need to be cited; it does not appear to be in dispute. The BIA Final Determination said that the Ramapough had not satisfied criteria related to genealogical, social and political continuity/descent as a tribe from a historical tribe of North America, pointing to a lack of data for the period 1750-1820. The question of cultural identity is different than acknowledging that some or many of the people may have Indian ancestry, and readers should be able to understand that from the content here.Parkwells (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The interesting part here is we didn't have a written language and the Colonials didn't care about Indians during this time period. There was a bounty on our heads and I don't think anyone was going to ask what Nation are you from before they killed them. One thing we do know. The Ramapough Nation is a blended group with ties to many other bands/clans in the area. A good example is the Ramapoo Nation that was in Connecticut in 1625. The map is here.. http://www.ramapoughlenapenation.org/wp-docs/Connecticut%20Indian%201625.pdf The Ramapo Nation is located in the "Siwanog" section. This was also a blended Nation of bands in the area and probably formed after the Colonial invasion and land displacements. The Chief's name was Catonah and he sold the land and the people moved north and west. Catonah is the nephew of Tapgow who sold the Ramapo Tract in 1700. (where we live now.) It seems most of the land deals in North Jersey to the Raritan were mainly controlled by one family. Ponus was the grandfather, Onax was Catonah's father and Tapgow was Onax brother. They were Munsee.

http://acqtc.org/Articles/SettingTheRecordStraight "The Quinnipiac/Quiripi (Mattabesec) defended the eastern half of southern New England with the Wampanoag as part of our alliance. The Munsee Bands protected the western half. This evolved to include the Iroquois in the Dawnland Confederacy, and the Renapi contingency was known as the Wappinger-Mattabesec Confederation (i.e., Western CT, Eastern NY, and N. NJ). The Ramapo Mountain Region in N. NJ became a refugium after the forced removal of our ancestors began." Please understand. There was a Nation here already and they just blended in. The Hackensacks, Tappans and the Manhattans were of the same family and Munsee. The Staten Island band (Munsee) moved to Nyack after the Dutch invasion. Also, Munsee tribes in the area were migratory. We farmed in the valleys in the summer (until the Dutch arrived) and hunted in the mountains in the Winter. I hope this wasn't too much. Ramapoughnative (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Make more NPOV: BIA process

Not presenting more facts about the BIA process made it appear as if the BIA had spent 20 years reviewing the case, but the Ramapough did not submit documentation for their petition until 1990, and the BIA quickly identified areas they needed to strengthen. It offered to work with them (according to the much-cited BIA Final Determination materials) and agreed to requested extensions before issuing its Final Determination. Have added some of the pertinent dates to the content about the process.Parkwells (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The BIA process is severely Flawed. They base their decision on the information you provide. Research can cost 1000's of dollars and most Nations don't have the funding (unless they get a casino backer). The BIA does not do independent research. Don't forget the original intent of the BIA was to assimilate the Nations not define them. We stated our intent to petition in 1978 but our petition was not heard until 1990. We were denied in 1993 and sued the BIA in the Supreme Court in 1996 and were turned down. There was alot of politics involved. For instance, Florio was Governor at the time and ended up working as a board of director for Trump. Sen Torricelli assisted in getting Trump's sister as a judge in the 3rd circuit court. (the same court who held our appeal process against the BIA) Torricelli left office after they found one of his donators was North Korean. Also we have letters like this.. http://www.wiki.ramapoughlenapenation.org/wp-docs/LandTitle.pdf How do you fight corruption on a limited budget? Ramapoughnative (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not defending the process and know that the documentation requirements are huge. Just trying to add content from the record, as you did. This can't be an attempt at investigative journalism, which would more likely be covered by the Bergen Record, which investigated the contamination, or New Yorker, which had a sympathetic article.Parkwells (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Governance

Our nation had an active Chief and Council government way before 1978. The significance of 1978 was the the Native Religious Freedom Act that allowed many Nations to petition for Federal Recognition. Ramapoughnative (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Verifiable sources are needed for this article.Parkwells (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

that will be tough. We have a wall in the Tribal Office with photos of the old Chiefs but I don't know where it would be documented.. Will have to research this. Ramapoughnative (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Exhibit

Something to consider.. American Museum of Natural History has an exhibit on display for North Eastern Indians and they have some of our artifacts donated by Alan Skinner in 1908. http://anthro.amnh.org/north USA Region=Northeast culture=Ramapo Mountain People. Ramapoughnative (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Might be good to add a Culture section where artifacts can be added. Opinions? Ramapoughnative (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

References to BIA decision

Some of the content has been quoted/referenced from the BIA Final Decision, but it cited other reasons for not recognizing the tribe than simply lack of ability to trace genealogy to an historic tribe. It seems there is not disagreement that members have some Indian ancestry, but rather, how the people have lived since the mid-19th century - by an identifiably different culture/community than their neighbors? The article should not be only about the BIA decision, but perhaps the other criteria should also be noted. There is considerable content about Indian presence in the mountains in the pre-colonial period, for instance, but that does not seem to be a point of disagreement. The BIA noted that an identifiable community seemed to have been recognized/formed by 1850-1870, it was perceived by others as part-Indian and part-other (not just as Indian), there were gaps in proving continuity of genealogical, social and political connection to an historic Indian tribe, but also gaps in showing political and social community among the larger group of people from 1950 on. This is also important. They noted that about 44% of the people on the 1992 member list were within the 10-mile diameter of the three towns, but there was not sufficient evidence of political and social connection to/among the people who did not live there, that is, in order to claim identity as a tribal community. So, other parts of the decision may need to be covered, too. If those points are not to be covered, it is probably better to devote less content to the BIA decision and simply summarize it. As it is, the section is lopsided.Parkwells (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Just like wikipedia, the BIA wanted written documentation and they wanted US to find it. Unless someone ran into us on their journeys and wrote it down, there's nothing much that was written. We passed thing down orally, we didn't have a written language. So the question is, other than land deeds, why would anyone document anything about us? They were trying to get rid of us. Pierson who owned the Ringwood mines did document some stuff. It was published long ago and I have a copy from a family member. I will have to see if it will be ok to use. Ramapoughnative (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than getting into all the details of BIA criteria, it is also ok simply to say that the BIA was not satisfied that the tribe satisfied its criteria. There is no requirement for all of the internal workings to be covered here. The state recognized the Ramapough. Parkwells (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good. thanks!Ramapoughnative (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Cohen's book

i disagree on this statement- "He found that some of the group's ancestors were multiracial, free Afro-Dutch who had migrated from lower Manhattan to the frontier." This is a claim by Cohen but has no proof. No one has put any weight in his claim and this statement makes it sounds like he is the authority on this subject. His position is the extreme minority view and no one agrees with him. He based his prose on using similar last names but not exacting data. My ancestors took on colonial names because the Dutch couldn't pronounce our names properly and it helped to give recognition if the name used was of some prominence. Cohen is trying to state we are the children of these people but he has shown no proof. Cohen is a historian, not a genealogist and his 1st book was originally a college thesis from Herbert Kraft's class. Can we change the above sentence from "found" to "claim"? He is the extreme minority view. Ramapoughnative (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Cohen's work was published by Rutgers University Press, which makes it an RS. It would be better simply to say "said". Both his and Kraft's work can be accurate, as they appear to be talking about different ancestors at different times. The people didn't stop with the Lenape who retreated to the mountains; it appeared that other people joined them and together they developed as the Ramapough Mountain Indians. Kraft says that the Lenape are among the progenitors of the RMI; that means there were other progenitors s as well. It appears that many of the scholars cited were writing about diverse strains of ancestors of current people, of which there has been more than one ethnicity. The BIA noted that RMI materials showed the people practiced endogamy from about 1870-1920 (as I recall). That appears to mean that before and after that, the RMI intermarried with people outside their group.Parkwells (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not in question. The issue is who the outsiders were. Cohen is not a Genealogist and didn't prove by birth certificates or documentation who is related to whom. This is the concern. By saying he "proved" descended from afro-dutch, it sounds like he found irrefutable evidence for which he himself said he didn't. Ramapoughnative (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Smithsonian report by Gilbert 1948

More information .. Jackson White —These people are located in an area roughly extending from Goshen to Nyack along the New Jersey borders in Orange and Rockland Counties. In some parts they show a predominance of Indian physical characteristics and in others of white or a mixture of white and Negro. The Indian blood is said to be derived from the Tuscarora and Munsee tribes, but the traditions and customs of the Indian are now difficult to find. The total number of these people in both New York and New Jersey is estimated at 5,000. The Jackson Whites totaling 5,000 or more, are scattered over parts of New York and New Jersey. As such they form an interstate population. They are a mixed-blood group, descendants of white, Indian, and in some areas Negro ancestors. They live by cultivation of the hillsides with a patch of corn or potatoes here and there, by hunting, and by keeping a few pigs, chickens, and now and then a cow. They are mainly located in the Ramapo Valley and the adjoining hills in Passaic, Bergen, and Morris Counties along the northern border. Wherever possible they are encouraged to enter local public schools. Split basketry and carved wooden utensils are manufactured as domestic industries. http://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo1948smit read about from page 410 on about all tribes in New England. Everyone is identified as being mixed blood (same things as us) but they are designated as "Indian". Also this is the reference for our number of 5000 members Ramapoughnative (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Then the number would have to be cited as of 1948. I took the 1992 membership list in the petition to the BIA as the official number.Parkwells (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversy over Origins

I hope i'm posting my information for review in the correct place. Thank you very much for all you have done. There was a question about Indian slavery and i have a few references. Also, this reference describes a Delaware's conversation with a few Englishmen in English.

"Tappans, Haverstraws and Hackensack's chief employment was hunting, fishing and fowling, and making canoes, bowls and other wooden and earthen wares. They also made hats, ropes, mats and baskets. Slavery was dreaded more than death and they themselves never made slaves of inferior races... to the English Governors, the Chief spoke in English "Brethren: It's been now more than two years since we heard out cousins the Delawares, taking up the hatchet against the English.."
pg.42-44" http://www.wiki.ramapoughlenapenation.org/wp-docs/Historical_record_to_the_close_of_the_ni.pdf. Ramapoughnative (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Moreover many of ours took the Indians into service, making use of them in their houses and thus, whilst they were being employed, laying open before those Indians our entire circumstances; and sometimes becoming weary of their work, they took leg-bail and stole much more than the amount of their wages". It appears not all Indian servants were slaves. http://www.ramapoughlenapenation.org/wp-docs/New_Netherland.pdf page 21. Ramapoughnative (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Brotherton Indians of New Jersey

were Lenape who were located on a reservation in Burlington County, NJ. They migrated to New York by 1802, where they settled with the Oneida and the Stockbridge-Munsee (partially Lenape). The Brotherton Indians of NJ about 1818 sold their land in New Jersey. They later migrated to Wisconsin with the Stockbridge-Munsee, a mixed Lenape and Mohegan group. The Brothertown/Brotherton Indians of Wisconsin are a different group, made up of descendants of several New England tribes who were Pequot and Mohegan-speaking. Parkwells (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes these were 2 different groups but are distantly related. http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeus5ef/degroatdegrootfootprints/degdes.html The Brotherton(Stockbridge/Munsee) are related thru Joost Degroat. The Brothertown group are related thru Chief Katonah's daughter marrying Sam Mohawk, a Mohican (Chicken Warrups) and moving to the Pequot reservation. All of the East Coast tribes are related, just as days of old. We now have a Ramapough married to a Shinnecock and another Ramapough married to a Sand Hill. I myself am Ramapough/Nanticoke/Oneida. During the times of turmoil, Indians stayed with other Indians for safety. Been a great pleasure working with you. Ramapoughnative (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

More on Chicken Warrups http://www.historyofredding.com/HRearlysettlers.htm#Chicken%20Warrup and http://nebekerfamilyhistory.com/nebgen/Elewatum_part_2.html Ramapoughnative (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The 2nd link is also located in the NY Public Library as well as Library of Congress http://nypl.bibliocommons.com/item/show/13850199052_who_our_forefathers_really_were and http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search_Arg=bearce&Search_Code=NAME%40&CNT=100&PID=i-hSfKRYKR9UCwg8VOaKWDtUr_AD&SEQ=20120719004926&SID=3 Ramapoughnative (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Was trying to show the chief groups, not to say that there were not individuals who might have intermarried. The question is what level of detail to get into. As Dougweller noted, it might be useful to look at articles. I'm trying to deal with the overall summary material.Parkwells (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The homepage of the DeGroat/DeGroot Footprints, to which you gave a link above, says, "The de Groots/De Groats are a tri-racial group mixed with Native American, Dutch and African American Ancestry..." As noted below, Cohen suggests one theory of early ancestors. This does not mean there were not other times of intermarriage of the RMI with people of partially African ethnicity, which other published RS noted.Parkwells (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As with other multiracial peoples seeking recognition as Native American tribes

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that over 90% of all american indians are miltiracial. "With 44 percent of Natives mixed with another race, American Indians claim the second-highest proportion of mixed-blood people in America (Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders are the first). " http://navajotimes.com/news/2012/0112/012612census.php This number is actually higher because western indians claim pure blood from the Dawes Rolls of 1898 but in fact were mixed bloods before they were forced west. Also, the Dawes rolls were not perfect. There are cases of white people enrolled on them too. Can we reword this to say "As with other native peoples seeking recognition as a Native American nation? thanks! http://www.manataka.org/page17.html

"The Cherokee was type cast early in the white history of this country. We were light skinned, and they just assumed we were mixed with the whites. The Cherokee actually had complexions that ranged in a variety of skin colors. These ranged from very light to very dark. They assumed that the darker ones were part black. They drove many of our people off their lands because of the darker skin. Many would not leave. They hid out in the woods and in the mountains. Many were forced to live as "white" citizens just to survive. Most lost their Cherokee heritage. Until 1909 they could not vote or hold office. They drove away or forced many onto Indian territory. This forced our people into hiding, and making it better to be "Black Dutch, Black Irish" or anything that was dark, than to be an American Indian" I think this is more of the truth. Ramapoughnative (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Good points; will change that sentence (you could have edited it and just added the reason). It helps to have someone else reading it. In writing that part, I was thinking particularly of tribes recently recognized in VA, who had problems proving continuity because of the racial reclassifications done since VA's one-drop rule law was passed in 1924 (under direction by Walter Plecker). It imposed a binary system in recordkeeping, classifying everyone as either black or white. He directed offices to reclassify numerous people previously recorded as American Indian, even changing existing records, to reclassify them as black or white. Secondly, I know that some of the Native Americans had been multiracial for generations before removal; it's not just assumption but documented among numerous leading families. It's my understanding not that the Dawes Rolls represented full-bloods, but people who were identified as members of the tribe at a particular time and useful for establishing a basis of record of descent.Parkwells (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

True..the intent of the Dawes rolls to my understanding was basically an inventory, but the western nations think of this as a basis of blood quantum because really, they don't know what their blood quantum is. The Delawares don't know what Nations they originate from. Ramapoughnative (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

They were trying to evade a New Jersey law prohibiting free blacks from entering the state or crossing county lines

Question. why are we giving so much attention to cohen's theories? He is the extreme minority in his hypothesis and "including extreme minority positions gives the false impression to users that the position is widely accepted". The Law Cohen quoted is only half right. The laws applied to freed black, mulattos and Indians. Also the law states 'Furthermore, children of freed slaves "and their posterity" were forever barred from purchasing or inheriting land in the Colony.', yet My ancestors owned land. (see Rich Degroat in Van Valen's book for one example.) The misconception is because my ancestors had the same last names as colonials, they must be the children of them. Once again i call to your attention cohen could not prove lineage. Indians at the time took the name of prominent colonials for business transactions because a. the colonist couldn't pronounce their real names. b. because indians thought it would get them a better bargain. Cohen is the only person with these blood tie views and to me it seems his theories are being given equal weight compared to the other odd 20 people who say he is wrong. Ramapoughnative (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"The historian David Cohen found that early settlers in the Hackensack Valley included "free black landowners in New York City and mulattoes with some Dutch ancestry who were among the first pioneers to settle in the Hackensack River Valley of New Jersey."[15] Among these were Augustine Van Donck, who bought land in the Tappan Patent in 1687. As the border between New York and New Jersey split the area of the patent in 1798, Cohen theorized that some of these early free people of color moved west into the mountains. (The surname Van Dunk is common among the Ramapough, as are DeGroat, DeFreese, and Mann.)" Adrian Van Der Donck who Cohen surmised the Van Dunk name came from didn't have any children. Also, as i stated before, Van der Donck started as the sheriff for Rensselaerswyck colony and later became the Lawyer. He was here with his wife and died during an Indian raid. Hard to believe someone who died in his early 30's would have been killed by his children. "Van der Donck returned to his estate in New Amsterdam and lived the quiet life of a landlord to his tenants. He passed away in 1655 or early 1656, most likely the victim of an attack by the Indians, as the war with the Indians had resumed and the Vanderdonck estate had been raided. Van der Ddonck was only in his mid thirties at the time of his death. It was a sad epistle to his life story. He had been an advocate of Indians' rights during his life. But it was not enough to secure his life at that critical moment prior to his death." http://www.nnp.org/nni/Publications/Dutch-American/donck.html There is not one reference found stating Van der Donck had any children. Also to this fact, "Augustine VAN DUNK" possibly being the progenitor of the Van Dunk name is probable but without info on his parents, no one can make assumption he is of Dutch origin. If Augustine Van Dunk was a freed Black, he wouldn't have been allowed to own land. I'll be working more on the original names. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think too much is being made of Cohen. No doubt VanDunk was a common name, and it does not mean that only one line contributed to the Mountain Indians. He is an RS; his conclusions do not need to be argued with in the article, as other RS are presented that show disagreement with him and their reasons. His theory may account for some ancestors, that's all. Bergen County had the highest rate of slaveholding in NJ; it is natural that some free blacks would have migrated west away from NY and the coast over time and intermarried with other settlers.(This was the pattern seen in VA, as free blacks migrated west into the Piedmont and then into KY and TN to get out of the racial hierarchies of the Tidewater.) Other historians cited in the article noted that some of the Mountain People were perceived as having multiracial ancestry, including African; this does not mean that they did not identify primarily as the Ramapough community. Both parts can exist at the same time. I'm not going to get into the genealogy questions here, and don't think that level of detail should be undertaken - the points of view of different sources are summarized.Parkwells (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur. A scholarly book from an academic press that is directly on topic is essential to include.

Pokey.. sign your references please. Ok.. Cohen is a very sensitive subject with the Elders. His entire book is a lie. They say he spent maybe 2 weeks with anyone here and tried bribing people with cigarettes and beer in exchange for information. When no one would talk to him, he continued to write his book without any input. Not much can be done about it now.. I've suggested we sue him for slander. He's made a fortune off of that book. Ramapoughnative (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is as you said.. "Mountain People were perceived as having multiracial ancestry, including African" This is the issue. Perception is a matter of conjecture. It is Cohen's perception the we are descendents of free blacks but he has NOT proved it. Many more scholars identified here do not have the same perception. He stands alone in his vision. Also, The law is not written as he states.. it's actually 2 laws added together. The first law was written about free blacks moving into the state from the South. http://www.slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm The second law states that slaves, Black, Indian or Mulatto can't move about freely without permission. http://njlegallib.rutgers.edu/slavery/bibliog.html#IB1 Cohen combined the two to make it more of his favor but this law doesn't exist as written. Ramapoughnative (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

since we're giving Cohen's version, we should include Rodger Joslyn's side .. a certified geneologists.. "Roger D. Jaslow, a genealogist hired by the Ramapoughs to document their ancestry, is convinced that they are, in fact, descendants of American Indians.

"There is really no question about their Indian ancestry," Mr. Joslyn said. "We have been able to document the relationships of at least 7,500 people from the mid-1700's to the present," he said, adding that the documentation is in the form of birth and death certificates, tax records, land conveyances and cemetery markers"." http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/01/nyregion/3-indian-tribes-stir-casino-fears.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm We could not print this before without printing the entire document. Also, Herbert Kraft stated.. "Dr. Herbert C. Kraft, professor of anthropology at Seton Hall University in South Orange, said that determining whether the Ramapoughs are descendants of American Indians is "a very fuzzy problem." My bias has always been that there are Indians among them but that they intermarried with various other groups," Dr. Kraft said. Included in those other groups, he said, were white settlers and freed blacks.

"There are people of all three races up there," he said. "And since they have intermixed and intermarried, the question is what percentage is still Native American." (same ref) Blood Quantum is not legal nor moral otherwise there would be only one race. Our requirements are 1/8 minimum. Also, not everyone who lives on the mountain is a RMI.. Ramapoughnative (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As noted before, to say that the RMI are multiracial does not mean that they are not descended from Lenape. Those two conditions exist at the same time. Kraft, whom you have cited, notes there was intermarriage with other groups; they could absorb new people and retain the community they consider the RMI.Parkwells (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes.. thanks .. this was for Pokey whom I've dealt with before.. He's so hung up on Cohen and his side.. Cohen thought we identified ourselfs as Indians rather than black because blacks had it worse. He was entirely wrong. Indians had it far worse with the bounty on Indian scalps in NJ and Pa. up until the 18th century and despite the added danger, we still identified ourselves as who we were. Ramapoughnative (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is a religious statement or oath required for membership into the tribe?

Chris R. asked if Christianity was a requirement for tribal enrollment. No, it is not. Many tribal members are traditionalist, including myself. http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/136717923_Ramapough_tribe_seeks_permit_to_build_longhouse.html Ramapoughnative (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response. I will remove the religious reference in the infobox then. Perhaps a paragraph could be added if there is interest and reliable sources for the subject. Cheers. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Are the Ramapoo Indians in the Chief Katonah article the same group?

This isn't clear; perhaps one of you folks who has done more research can straighten this out. Djembayz (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes..The Nation of Ramapo Indians in Connecticut were a blended tribe and merged with the Munsi Indians in Northern New Jersey/Southern New York. The Opings from New York moved with the Ramapoughs and were then known as Pomptons. Munsi Territory was Southern New York, Western Connecticut, Manhattan and Staten Island. After ther influx on Europeans, some of the Manhattans and Staten Island Bands merged in Nyack, New York. Hackensack and Tappans were also Munsi, were related and have descendents in the Ramapough. The names of the tribes are irrelavant as these are the names designated to us by the Dutch depending on where they met us. The Munsi were migratory and we are all one people. This is why we are call the Ramapough Lunaape NATION. Links already exist in the Ramapo/Chief Katonah articles. Ramapoughnative (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement about NY recognition

The lengthy 2007 article by Alexa Koenig and Jonathan Stein (already cited) says on pp. 128-129 that NY does not have a separate process for recognizing tribes and did not recognize the Ramapough Mountain Indians. Have not yet been able to read the 1979 legislative resolution referenced, but assertions about it appear to contradict their 2007 article as well as one in 2009 in Rockland County saying the tribe was "seeking" NY state recognition. Maybe there is a misunderstanding as to what the resolution could do.Parkwells (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. The recognition in New York is by resolution. New York does have a full state recognition process and the Shinnecock were on it until they became federally recognized. http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/staterectribes.htm The bill that we have been working on with New York is to expand our rights to full recognition. Recognition by resolution is both house and senate approval but not gov signature. Full state recognition would include signature. The problem is the fear of casinos and there is nothing we can do about it. We can't give up that option because the government won't let us. The same issue is happening in Va. The Nations in Va. are trying to pass a bill thru congress to remove the casino option and 2x it has been held up. Notice the Wagering Commission specifically has it spelled out on their website that we are not recognized but nothing about any others. I hope this has helped you understand. Ramapoughnative (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This 2007 article by Koenig and Stein is specifically about this topic, and reviews all the states that have recognized tribes independently of the federal government. <<http://works.bepress.com/alexa_koenig/2/ Alexa Koenig and Jonathan Stein, "Federalism and the State Recognition of Native American Tribes: A Survey of State-Recognized Tribes and State Recognition Processes across the United States"], Santa Clara Law Review, Vol. 48, 2007, p 101. Note: On page 129 they note that the Ramapough Mountain Indians had NOT been recognized by the state of New York; only the Shinnecock and one other tribe have been, and that was for longstanding historical relationships with the state, which has no separate process for Indian tribal recognition.>> As you note, the Ramapough are not included on the recognized list for NY for the Access Genealogy site. It would be useful if you can find a verifiable source/copy of the NY resolution if you want that information included in the article. At this point, the Santa Clara Law Review is an RS.Parkwells (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not the greatest copy but it's legible. http://www.wiki.ramapoughlenapenation.org/wp-docs/NYResolution.pdf

Ramapoughnative (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a legible copy of the NY resolution complete with signature and seal. New one can be downloaded from same link above. Ramapoughnative (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I found more evidence that we are recognized by the state of New York.. A letter from congressmen John Payne stating so in 1993. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/pdf?id=pst.000023405011;orient=0;size=100;seq=462;num=459;attachment=0 Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ramapough Lunaape Munsee Delaware Nation

The name of the tribal entity as per the Tribal council is Ramapough Lunaape Munsee Delaware Nation. I've included the name at the beginning of the article. Ramapoughnative (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Recognition as descendents of the local indigenous tribes

We are identified and recognized by the state of new jersey Stated a bit differently, it might be best to not concentrate too much on federal recognition "Be it resolved by the general assembly of the state of new jersey that the Ramapough Mountain People of the Ramapogh Mountains of Bergen and Passaic counties, descendants of the Iroquois and Algonquin nations, are hereby designated by the state of new jersey as the Ramapough Mountain Indians". There is a difference between "self identifying" and being "identified as". http://www.wiki.ramapoughlenapenation.org/wp-docs/ACR3031.pdf Ramapoughnative (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)