Friday, August 26, 2011

Let Crane Eater Rest In Peace

"I'm amazed that this is still going on. Why would anyone care about someone else's family to this degree?"

That is a question left in a comment on another blog where the blogger seems more interested in proving me wrong than in proving her real family history. Apparently what the blog commenter fails to realize is I don't care about someone else's family. I really don't. The person I care about is a Cherokee named Crane Eater.

I know, I know, the blogger insists her ancestor, James Keith, and the Cherokee man named Crane Eater are the same man. But guess what. She is wrong.

In her blog post, "Thriller Thursday: More Coincidence? Nahhhhhhh," she says,
She is talking about a claim the Cherokee man, Crane Eater, made in 1842, for loss of property that occurred when the soldiers rounded up the Cherokees and forced their removal from Georgia. Was Crane Eater alive in 1842? Yes. That is obvious because he filed a claim. But does that mean James Keith didn't die in 1839 as "previously thought"? No.

This is where sources and documentation come in handy. You see, James Keith's widow, Sarah, filed a widow's pension application for his service in the War of 1812. If she was a widow, guess what she would have to list in that application -- the date of death of her husband.


Looky there, boys and girls! Death of soldier - Jan. 29, 1839, Cass Co, Ga. And this isn't the only place in the application that date of death is listed. Every time Sarah reported her husband's, James Keith's, date of death, it was January 29, 1839. So can anyone tell me how a man who died in 1839 is living in Indian Territory and filing a claim in 1842? I think you can see my point. This blogger's claim that James Keith and Crane Eater were the same man cannot be true.The reason James Keith is absent from the US and Georgia state census records is because he was dead. He was not imprisoned. He was not listed on Cherokee rolls in the west. He was DEAD.

I could go on and on with all the contradictions in everything posted by the blogger that supposedly shows these two were the same man, but there is no point. James Keith died in Georgia in 1839 and Crane Eater was alive in Indian Territory in 1842. End of story. End of myth. End of claim.

Like I said, I don't care about someone else's family, but I do care about Crane Eater and his memory. He and his memory belong to the people of the Cherokee Nation. He is one of us and no one should try to lay claim to our people, our ancestors, unless their claim is based in truth. It is unconscionable that people think they have the right to steal one of our ancestors and try to re-write the history of that person to fit the story they want to tell. Our ancestors deserve better than that. They deserve their stories to be told as they were.

Crane Eater was a full blood Cherokee who lived on the Coosawatie River before he was arrested by soldiers and forcibly removed with the rest of the Cherokees. He was a survivor of the horrific Trail of Tears and his memory should be honored with truth, not mythology. Now that we know the truth, hopefully we can move on from this nonsense and finally let Crane Eater rest in peace.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

The Granddaughter

copyright 2011, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

35 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I didn't miss anything. You seem to be reaching with your speculation and theories while ignoring actual history and the documentation that does not support what YOU want. It is time you give this a rest. Crane Eater and James Keith were NOT the same man.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yvonne, you just make stuff up as you go. It doesn't matter if there were 100 Crane Eaters. James Keith was not born or raised in the Cherokee Nation like they would have been. That is documented. You really should let this go. You are making a fool of yourself and the only people who can't see it are those of you who don't understand anything about true Cherokee history or genealogy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh boy! Now it is speculation about him spreading sperm everywhere, and making little Crane Eaters?! Where is the proof?! Sheesh! It is amazing the scenerios people will create to hang on to romanticized BS! I hear variations on this theme every day at work!

    ReplyDelete
  6. You were counting on the fact that she would do this...

    1. She had the information from the pension, and she refused to post it, though it would be the OBVIOUS thing to do because the information came from somewhere. Though it doesn't particularly do any good when you want to create genealogy INSTEAD of taking the evidence with has proven over and over again that James Keith WAS NOT Crane Eater.

    Who exactly is this mysterious "Crane Eater Jr?" Which of James Keith's children? Where are HIS subsequent records?

    2. She claims that she "forgot" to post the information from today and only did so once you blogged about your findings today. I DON'T BUY THAT FOR ONE MINUTE!! I believe she knew you would come forth with this documentation and didn't want to play her whole hand because she knew she would need to wiggle out of your concrete findings. This woman is a professional scam artist. It shows in her continual "updates" to her blog, which she manipulates to make herself seem like a victim; furthermore using your sound and documented findings to make it seem as though YOU'RE stalking HER, when she mysteriously posts a blog in response to yours. Who's stalking who? I think the constant dropping of your name, and smug, petty revisions of her blog posts regarding you proves she is. Just saying.

    I cannot wait for you to settle this once and for all BECAUSE I know what's coming, and it's gonna be a doozy, lol. Good luck wiggling your way out of this one lady.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yvonne,
    You might want to do a little more actual research on your own ancestor instead of clinging to the myth that Crane Eater was James Keith. You are disrespecting the memory of both men with your claims. Why isn't James Keith good enough to be your ancestor without him being Crane Eater? Or even without being Cherokee at all? How sad for your ancestor that you are so disappointed in him you have to attach someone elses life story to him.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Exactly, Karen! This has gone so far beyond someone wanting to find their actual ancestor! Very sad. I am afraid Yvonne will not let poor Crane Eater rest in peace until he rises from the dead, and agrees to adopt her, just to shut her up!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Karen, I believe you have hit the nail on the head. Had William L.D. Keith never have filed that Eastern Cherokee claim, I don't think this would be an issue. No where else in any actual documentation does anything even suggest James Keith and Crane Eater were the same man. We find records on James Keith and we find records on Crane Eater, but we never find anything, other than W.L.D. Keith's Miller app, that says they were the same person. Considering the app was filed nearly 70 years after the death of James Keith, it is far from a primary source.

    If Yvonne were interested in her real ancestry, she would simply search and follow the path the documents lead her on. Instead, she is taking her readers down a detour where she looks at everything but the facts about her ancestor, James Keith. She distracts them by constantly saying Crane Eater is James Keith. She misleads them by saying Crane Eater is found on one document when actually, it is James Keith that is found. She is using smoke and mirrors to conceal the fact she really has nothing to base HER claim, because it is now not just William L.D. Keith's claim, but hers as well, on other than one rejected Miller application.

    There is much about Cherokee history and culture Yvonne doesn't understand so she thinks she has found something when it can easily be explained by someone who actually sees things in the context they were used in. I am not sure who her "expert genealogist in the area of Cherokee genealogy" is, but they might either want to follow her blog and see what she is writing or she might need to find a better genealogist if they are feeding her the BS she is posting. I have discussed this situation and had it reviewed by several well known professional genealogists and my research on this subject is good.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Documents are the key to finding the truth. Knowing how to interpret those documents is critical. Using the clues revealed therein leads to more documents, more interpretations and so on. Yvonne is stuck on one document she has been wholly unable to interpret because it says what she wants to hear, that her ancestors were Cherokees. But upon close examination of the Miller applications, juxtaposed with the historic records created by and about James Keith and by and about Crane eater, we find an inescapable truth, her ancestors were liars. Their 11th hour claim that James Keith and Crane eater were the same person not only contradicts the historic record, but they ignore their own family history Yvonne has mentioned several times, her ancestors were dishonest. This particular family of Keiths and several allied families, were desperately trying to lay claim to a share of Cherokee money. Their own lame stories didn't impress the government, so they switched gears and began a strange and twisted journey that has not only touched the lives of their living descendants, but also raised the ire of Cherokee Indians. This dishonorable journey would have gone unnoticed and unchallenged if not for the diligent genealogical work Twila has invested. She knows how to read a document, interpret a document and go to the next level to prove Yvonne has stolen a Cherokee ancestor. Keep up the good work Twila, there are many more of this same ilk out there. Yvonne, pay attention. You are wrong, move on!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yvonne, why do you think Crane Eater had at least nine children? What are you basing that theory on? And what are you basing your theory that he might have had another wife or family on? What documentation do you have that shows either of those assumptions to be based in truth?

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yvonne, you are wrong. You are not related to me. I can't help it if you refuse to see the truth. It is rather apparent that you are not interested in the truth. You WANT to be a Cherokee, no matter how much you have to twist, bend, shape information to try to make it fit the story you want to tell. And, if that information isn't what you want, you either ignore it or make some excuse why it doesn't say what you need it to say in order to fit the story you want to tell. Face it Yvonne, James Keith was white. He was NOT the same man as Crane Eater.

    My advice to you would be to take a step back and re-evaluate all the non-sense you are posting on your blog. There is no truth to the things you post and anyone who has any skill at all in genealogy or Cherokee research can see it. Or hire a genealogist and have them look at it. Maybe they can explain where your research is in error.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Having interaction with Cherokees DOES NOT make one Cherokee!!! How many times does this need to be spelled out. It's ridiculous. Nor does having an ancestor marry into a tribe...they are your cousins, THEY have the blood, NOT you. Have mercy.

    In layman's terms: having a cousin's uncle's great-grandfather's ex-wife's aunt's daughter who was Creek, Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, or Chickasaw DOES NOT transfer blood to you!

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wrong again. The 1870 Census you refer to has a W at the top of the page and then tick marks all the way down to indicate everyone is white. You need to learn how to read old handwriting. Compare that letter to the M the enumerator used to indicate male. They don't even look close to the same, but then compare the W he used to indicate white on the other pages and you have a very close match. James Keith and the rest of his family was white.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You are wrong. They were all white. Enough with your claims of this person or that person agreeing with you. If you have an ancestry transcriber who agrees with you, share their name and credentials. If you have a genealogist who agrees with you, share their name and credentials. You can claim away all you want but it means nothing if you can't back it up with proof. The claims you make and the things you say in your blog are both unethical and a blemish on the field of genealogy. You are not writing history or genealogy at all. You are writing fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Still no names of all these people who agree with you? Just as I thought. Just talk, but nothing to back it up. Keep claiming because no one believes you but you. Your tree has all kinds of people in it that aren't really related to you. You dream up a claim and then add people to try to pass it off as a true connection when it isn't.

    Like it or not, you have become a laughing stock among people who do real genealogy and study Cherokee history. People don't even pay attention to you anymore because everything you write is so ludicrous. You think you have done some masterpiece of genealogy when actually, you have disgraced your family and made a mockery of the standards for sound genealogical practices. I can't do anything but shake my head. It is pretty sad, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Show me the evidence that says James and Sarah had a son named Levi. No point in looking at something not based in evidence.

    Also, you can't share names because you don't have any. As for Dr. John Worth, that is between me and him. If he has research that shows James Keith and Crane Eater were the same person, it is unethical for him not to provide that to other researchers when it is needed or requested. And, it is also unethical for him, in his job, to do harm to the very people he is studying. His claims that Crane Eater and James Keith were the same man have caused harm to the Cherokee people by encouraging people like you to carry on with something that is absolutely NOT supported by evidence. If he were the respectable archeologist you claim, he would man up and either share the info or admit he was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ummm, regardless of any of this, Mulatto and black mean just that...Mulatto or Black! Mainly though when a census taker marked either of these, it was because there was visible negro ancestry, having NOTHING to do with Indian blood. I have yet to see records of someone PROVEN to be Indian and White, be marked Mulatto or Black on records. Fullbloods (Yes), Mixed with Indian and Black (Yes)...Indian and White (Heck No) White (Hell No!.) How does that turn into Fullblood Cherokees and mixed bloods that disappear into white society. It's hysterical how blind to facts you are. So shameful.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Just a bit more info:

    Black or Mulatto persons, only appear in the 1870 census and those thereafter because they were not considered heads of household or persons of free will...

    Only Black or Mulatto people appearing as heads of household prior to 1870 (their first enumeration) were Free Persons of Color, and they would appear on records prior to 1870. If they cannot be found, they were not a free person. Period.

    If they are found in 1860 they were free and likely will be found in census records 1850 1840 and any other record a white man would be.
    You might also be able to find land records that predate 1870 IF that person were free.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Nice cut and paste from the research of Larry Keith. Now where is the proof this black man, Levi Keith, was the son of James and Sarah? You don't even mention him in the comment you just made.

    The Keith family was white. The evidence to show that just keeps piling up with nothing to suggest they were Indian other than the rejected ECAs. Seems pretty obvious to me and my readers, the family was simply dishonest and making false claims, just like their descendant today is.

    And just because you found a black man with the surname Keith does not mean he is related to you in any way and it does not mean that he was Indian or Keith's were Cherokee or any other type of Indian.

    And, Yvonne, you don't get it. I don't care what you think or write or claim. Any research I do now on Crane Eater or this situation is strictly about him and setting the record straight. I have come to the conclusion you will never accept the truth no matter what. I don't know if you are just bitter about the fact you are not Cherokee or if you have some mental defect, but whatever the reason, you are hopelessly caught up in your own web of lies and you can't break free. You are doing your ancestors and descendants a great disservice by continuing on with the myth, but that is your choice, I guess.

    Undoubtedly, I will once again be the subject of your blog, but that's okay. I say hate on me all you want. You're making me famous! ;) (Believe me, if you only knew how much positive attention you are helping me get, you would probably drop this!) But I do appreciate it, so thanks! :D

    ReplyDelete
  28. Larry Keith provided some of this research. He did have some things wrong, including the parents of James Keith. Levi Todd was actually the son, and Elizabeth was his wife. Since that time, another genealogist, Martha Reddus, before her death, clarified this and provided information and land records for the Wyatt family about Crane Eater. Martha contributed all her research to the Trail of Tears Association.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yvonne, That is a BLATANT lie...it was actually VERY uncommon, and the Indians that were enumerated as Black were done so BECAUSE they had negro ancestry. This was the exception, NOT the rule. You don't get to be the exception to EVERY uncommon occurance in genealogy. You're not going to skate with that one.
    Also, for the record, I am a first generation Northerner. Everyone one of my ancestors in from the deep south, so there's that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You are hilarious Yvonne. Seriously hilarious. If you only knew what I know.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well put, Dvine_Shay. Thanks for your very informative comments today.

    ReplyDelete
  34. And please PLEASE re-read what I said Yvonne...I said plainly that Fullblood might have been enumerated as black, it is a possiblity, Mixed/Indian Blacks could be enumerated as black. It is completely out of the realm of possibilty for a white person or someone who has a small amount of Indian blood who is white to be enumerated as Mulatto or black...it's outrageous. No one will mistake a white person for Indian OR black. The person living in that era themself would surely correct THAT record.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but refuse to have historical information tarnished in this way. The time and effort it takes real genealogists to search records from ceiling to floor, should not be sullied by someone who wants to build an ancestor. It's not right.

    And we all know about the LDS genealogy sites, THEY like other genealogy sites; while they can lead you in the right direction, they have flaws, as they are compiled by beginning genealogists, and people who also want to "build an ancestor..." You have to be willing to accept what is fact. If you come into a game already claiming something that doesn't belong to you, the search is no longer sacred and eternal...whatever that means.

    ReplyDelete

Your comments are welcome!