Sioux, Ojibwe or Dakota?

+2 votes

On NaN undefined NaN Jillaine Smith wrote on Sioux-1:

We seem to have a lot of tribe mixup in this family. Sioux. Dakota. obijwe. Which is accurate?

WikiTree profile: Omigaundib Sioux
in Genealogy Help by Jillaine Smith G2G6 Pilot (775k points)

3 Answers

+3 votes

Jillaine if you read that history in the source for this profile you will see that the Metis is the answer.  The Dakota Sioux and the Ojibwe were living together and intermarrying at that time on the St. Croix and that Omigaundib Wabasha was the son of Snow Mountian Wabasha ( a Dakota Sioux) and an Ojibwe wife.

The peace between these groups was not long lived and Omiagaundib was shot with an arrow, by a Dakota warrior,but he survived and led an Ojibwe battle that resulted in the death of many Sioux: the Battle of Point Prescott. 

by Navarro Mariott G2G6 Pilot (146k points)
I added the father and a bit of narrative to both, there is another brother that could be added and there are hints to more sources
Navarro, I reviewed the source link and I see no mention of Métis.  Please clarify. Thanks.
No, you are right they did not say that BUT it was Metis, as they were a mix of native blood, depemding on the person most define Metis as mix of white (usually white - Scotts, French and English mainly) and First Nations people - but some use it for a mix of any two nationalities.
So these two brothers were a rare mix of Ojibwe and Dakota Sioux that because of La Sueur's bringing together of these tribes in peace briefly the marriage was made, as were others I am sure, but these were recorded due to the later battle and therefore have documentation.  I wish I had time to pursue this family more.
Navarro, thanks for clarifying that Métis is not a tribe or nation name but a descriptor of mixed race.

My understanding is that in some (most?) tribes, a child's tribal association was through the mother. (Maybe that was only the Cherokee?) Do we know for Dakota and Ojibwe?
The Ojibwe were not matrilineal, clans descended through the father.  That still doesn’t answer the question, because it’s likely the Ojibwe considered Wapasha an adopted member of the tribe and if so his son would also be Ojibwe,
Well he must have considered himself Ojibwe as he went to his mother's family and then took a war party back and they battled and beat the Dakota Sioux after one of them shot him with an arrow - so I think his decision was mad for him by that action after the peaceful time between those groups was over - sad really but it is how it went
A person of mixed Dakota and Ojibwe ancestry would not be considered Metis.  Neither would every person of mixed white and indigenous heritage.  The Metis are distinct peoples and often associated with the mixed-heritage people originating near the Red River Settlement (now Winnipeg and St. Boniface).  See
+2 votes
This was a subject I thought long and hard about for relations in our families combined histories.  It is also a subject that crosses many other cultures. Some countries didn't recognize use of middle names - all multiple names were the given name. Now we have Alma August Josephine as given and later in time a patriarchal last name was assigned.
Those leading before us had a name, not several names at the same time- although this known name would and did often change throughout life as determined as by culture. Names were a phrase meaning a specific thing/event. To do history right we must adhere to "the specific cutures" naming patterns at the time in order to ensure all are recorded correctly. In event of "phrase" names in past- this should go in last name, complete. Just as many in parts of the world have no middle name to be placed on a line in todays' world forms for middle name, some will have nothing in that first blank or the second. I'll be one that doesn't alter history to fit a specific "beautification/conformity".  Genetic "slang" terms created over the years has no basis qualifying a persons name. Apologies my "Metis" fam, I must speak bluntly. Todays' tribal or fed recognized affiliation is separate from who the person was- that item belongs in biography. Genealogy is history. We must write truth.
by Jeanette McIntyre G2G5 (5.2k points)

Thanks for writing and sharing your thoughts. It is challenging  to reflect the accuracy of how a person was named during their lifetime in a modern technological structure like the wikitree database which requires a "last name at birth" in order to generate a  "profile ID".

Early Native Americans did not use surnames. Project volunteers struggled with how best to represent their names in Wikitree's data fields. Some time ago, a decision was reached to use the name of the tribe or nation in the "last name at birth" field. The first name field  is used for the "phrase name" the person was most known by (when we know) and the other name fields for alternative names or phrase names the person went by.

It may not be ideal. And not everyone agrees it is the best solution. But it is now the wikitree approach for the recording of  names of early Native Americans before they adopted surnames.

The original post above is seeking help determining which tribe or nation the linked profile was associated with.
Jeanette, thank you for your thoughtful comments.  I have seen over and over again that the naming concerns of some First Nations/American Indians/Native Americans are dismissed on Wikitree.  I believe many out here are unable to hear the concerns.  I hope you will continue to use your voice.
+2 votes
The Dakota ARE Sioux.  The Sioux ARE Dakota.
by S D G2G6 Mach 1 (18.4k points)

Related questions

+3 votes
0 answers
43 views asked Jun 2 in Genealogy Help by S D G2G6 Mach 1 (18.4k points)
+6 votes
0 answers
+2 votes
2 answers
+4 votes
4 answers
242 views asked Jul 26, 2015 in Genealogy Help by Dylan Parnell G2G4 (4.5k points)
+2 votes
2 answers
+8 votes
2 answers
+2 votes
2 answers
250 views asked Jun 11, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Jillaine Smith G2G6 Pilot (775k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright