Talk:Creek (American Indians)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Creek (American Indians) appeared as a selected article on the The Indigenous peoples of North America Portal on July 3, 2006.
Map needed
 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help!

Contents

[edit] "explorers"?

I can't even figure out what the quotes are insinuating, but an insinuation seems inappropriate. If there is a point worth making, please make it.

family —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.171.31.195 (talk • contribs) at 16:55 on 27 December 2004

[edit] Flag

Isn't the flag featured in this article purely fictional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.50.222 (talk • contribs) at 03:14 on 4 November 2005

Not at all, like many other Native American nations, the Muscogee Nation has a flag. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 16:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Flag shown is not the official flag of the Muscogee Nation, that flag is a white background with the Great Seal of the Muscogee Nation showing on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowcatX (talk • contribs) at 14:07 on 16 August 2006

The flag shown is in fact that of the historical State of Muskogee, a short-lived Creek-Seminole state in Florida. See for example [1]. -- Himasaram 15:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The flag seems like a poor choice for this article. Can we get the current Mvskoke (Creek) Nation flag instead? -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll go a step further: The flag is historically inappropriate and fails the reliable source test. Does it exist anywhere except on the Web? It's been challenged since November 2005 and I think it's time to remove it. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no official flag of the Muscogee Nation. The one shown is a historical flag, and was registered by William Augustus Bowles at Freeport, Bahamas, in 1793 as the flag of the Muscogee Navy. I've lost the precise reference to it. Five different versions of that flag stand in the east entrance to the Mound Building at the tribal capitol in Okmulgee, OK. One of them has an all-blue background, which is based upon an actual flag which was in the home of a veteran/citizen and was described by German Thomas before his death. Some believe the change to a blue background might reflect the antipathy of the Loyal Creeks to the Confederacy because of the loss of 5,000 lives during and following the third battle on their march to Kansas in the fall and winter of 1861. On the other hand, traditionally red is a color of war, and blue is a color of mystery, so the owner or maker may have had other reasons.

There is no tribal Ordinance adopting the white flag with the Great Seal of the Muscogee Nation in its center. I first saw that flag at the second inauguration of Claude Cox in 1975. It is in wide-spread use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escaswvcvpko (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Shouldn't this be under "Muscogee" or "Muskogee"? I think most modern sources refer to them as such. Just a suggestion. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 16:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I generally go by Creek; if I tell people I'm Mvskoke, they hear "Muscogee", and think of the town (and the song Okie from Muskogee). Like it or not, being in the English-based section of the encyclopedia, that's the perspective. Then again, there's a substantial minority that think I said "Greek" . . . . Hence, the reason the nation uses "Mvskoke (Creek) Nation" for it's name. Bruce H. McCosar 11:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous to Tennessee?

Is there good evidence that Muskogee-Creek were indigenous to Tennessee as the article states? User Tpkunesh made this addition, however, I have seen no source outside of his own testimony that this is the case. If this user is Tom Kunesh of Chattanooga, I have heard him speak. His stated aim is to see collections of Indian remains in academic research institutions returned under NAGPRA, and, according to him it is necessary to prove that the Muskogee-Creek were indigenous to Tennessee, and that the remains in custody of the University of Tennessee and other academic institutions are from people ancestral to the modern Muskogee Tribe, in order to accomplish this goal, which is of singular importance to him. With due respect to research which may exist and support these claims, I feel that this addition was not made from a neutral point of view. Unless strong evidence exists that the Creek's home territory included Tennessee, I feel that this section should be edited to reflect a better neutral POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.185.114 (talk) at 06:56, 26 July 2006

I can agree with this; I have seen nothing in the appx. 20 books on my tribe I have here to substantiate this, nor have I heard anything about it from my family (we were from the Eufaula, AL area originally--that is, before removal). Now, getting into the entire issue of the ancestors of the modern Mvskoke tribe is a big old ill-defined can of worms. I'd like to hear from someone else before I edit the page myself. -- Bruce H. McCosar 15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. If you're from the Chattanooga area, you may have seen my Dad's artwork (Bunnie McCosar) in some of the galleries around town (or I think at the Aquarium, unless that exhibit has moved on).

[edit] Reply to: Indigenous to Tennessee?

Archaeologists and ethnohistorians are almost universal in agreement that the Chiaha (Chehaw), Koasati (Coste, Coushatta), Tuskegee (Tasquiqui), Tali, and Kaskinampo (Casqui) were the "tribes" living along the Tennessee Valley at the time of the expeditions of de Soto, de Luna, and Pardo. In fact, someone who knows the area can read the journals and sometimes know precisely where events took place. Not always, but sometimes. All those groups later made up part of the Upper Towns. Another group of whom some joined the Muskogee confederacy were the Yuchi, or Chisca, who likewise lived in the Tennessee Valley, some even in the early 1700's, where many were slaughtered by the encroaching Cherokee (at Chestowee, Euchee Old Fields, and Hiwassie Island, for example).

All of these "tribes", and I use "tribes" in quotations because they identified more by town, later made up significant parts of the later Upper Towns. Speaking of the Eufaula, they were originally from the area of Bartow County, Georgia, not far from the Itawa of the Etowah Mounds site. The original home of the Coosa was the now-underwater site known as Coosawatie. At the time of first contact with the traders of Carolina colony, the westermost settlements of the Cherokee were the twin towns of Tellico and Chatuga. Pressure from the European invasion pushed everyone west, decimated the towns and peoples, and caused the reduced native inhabitants to form confederacies, of which almost all the tribes today were in origin.

Most of the information I have comes from Raymond Evans and/or Nick Honercamp, two of the most highly respected in the field on matters regarding the pre-European Southeast. Other comes from colonial maps and Indians of the Southeastern United States by John R. Swanton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.11.41 (talk) on 2 October 2006

Since this has appeared again, could I trouble you to include references in your next edit? I can see the sources above, but I can't turn them into actual, formal references without more info. I'm only putting in the citations flag since this has been debated above. -- Bruce H. McCosar 01:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading this just now, I thought I remembered reading about the idea, and, looking through some books, found one that contains the idea that Creek people lived in east Tennessee in prehistoric and "protohistoric" times (protohistoric being the 150 years or so between the Spanish expeditions and later Europeans). In the book it is the origin of the Cherokees being discussed. The author writes about how some anthropologists hypothesize that the Cherokee had occupied the Tennessee Valley since Mississippian times, but others believe they were mainly living in western North Carolina at the time of the Spanish expeditions, and, "A few Cherokee speakers might have resided within the borders of Tennessee, these investigators say, but linguistic analysis and other data suggest that mid-sixteenth-century East Tennesseans were primarily non-Cherokees of Muskogean linguistic stock who were related to today's Creeks." It goes on a bit about the possible southward migration of Creeks / proto-Creeks. ..so I added this book as a source for the statement here: The early historic Creeks were probably descendants of the mound builders of the Mississippian culture along the Tennessee River in modern Tennessee and Alabama, and possibly related to the Utinahica of southern Georgia. I tried to reword this sentence to read better, because it seems a bit awkward and could be better put... but I can't quite think of how to do it right now. Pfly 05:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thank you Pfly! This is the thing that makes Wikipedia great. -- Bruce H. McCosar 11:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Be Creek, or Not To Be Creek

That is the question. There has been an ongoing chain of ins-and-outs on Carrie Underwood. Finally, User:Eqdoktor found a citation and posted it on the Carrie Underwood page. I'm puzzled why this particular item gets attention when none of the other Famous Creek require a citation. I get the strange feeling I've completely missed some point, that someone knows some bit of policy I don't. At any rate, I cross-posted the citation from the Carrie Underwood page. Am I right? What's the deal here? -- Bruce H. McCosar 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't be too bothered - You are totally correct and your not missing anything. Assuming good faith, editors who question the entry can be pointed to the correct cites (and even check out the releveant discussion pages). Schoolyard vandalism on the other hand can just be speedily reverted and the editor warned with a simple user template warning.--Eqdoktor 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creek people?

What criteria should be used in describing "Creek people" of the present? For instance, my father's south Georgia family has an undocumented tradition of Creek ancestry, but I don't feel entitled to call myself Creek. Where do we draw the line in this article? Is everyone who claims to be Creek admitted to be Creek? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am from jasper alabama. i have native american ansestory on my maternal side,by my grandparents..My granfaters mother was full blood creek indian,My grandmothers father was blackfoot indian.I claim my native american heritage just as i claim the other creoleand japanese and caucasian.But since the native american was more recent and i knew these great grandparents i would feel i am denying them if i just say i am white.I look white but i have features that are not white,most people ask if i am hispanic.So i know that i cannot deny my bloodline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.137 (talk) at 03:07, 16 July 2007