top of page

Market Research Group

Public·12 members
Andrew Stewart
Andrew Stewart

Tamil Baby Boy Names Pdf 183


If you want a more musical approach and prefer animal songs in German, the video Die Tiere auf Deutsch lernen might be just what you are after. The video introduces not only the names of animals but also the various vocabulary for animals of the male and female gender. The video is very comprehensive, and we recommend it for people who already have a basic grasp of the related vocabulary.




tamil baby boy names pdf 183


DOWNLOAD: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmiimms.com%2F2ubIzn&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw3H6ZLcgvjCHUqWQHQVLA4q



The Act of July 4, 1884, (23 Stat. 76, 98) was vague, saying, "That hereafter each Indian agent be required, in his annual report, to submit a census of the Indians at his agency or upon the reservation under his charge." The Act itself did not specify the collection of names and personal information. However, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs sent a directive in 1885 (Circular 148) that reiterated the statement and added further instructions: "Superintendents in charge of Indian reservations should submit annually, a census of all Indians under their charge." He told the agents to use the plan he had prepared for gathering the information. The sample showed columns for Number (consecutive), Indian Name, English Name, Relationship, Sex, and Age. Other information on the number of males, females, schools, school children, and teachers was to be compiled statistically and included separately in the annual report.


The 1885 and later censuses were compiled by the agents using forms sent by the BIA. There was supposed to be only one census for each reservation, except in a few cases where part of the reservation was in another state. The original was sent to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs; multiple copies were not created. The earliest censuses were written in by hand, but typing appeared quite early. Eventually the Commissioner issued instructions on exactly how to type some entries in, and requested that the family names be placed in alphabetical sections on the roll. For a while, a new census was taken each year and the entire roll redone. By 1921 agents were told to list all the people under their charge, and if a name was listed for the first time, or was not listed from the last year, an explanation was required. It was considered helpful to indicate the number for the person on the previous year's census. Persons also could be designated by a number peculiar to that reservation, if it was explained somewhere, or they could be listed as "N.E.", or "Not Enrolled." In the 1930s, sometimes only supplemental rolls showing the additions and deletions from the previous year were submitted. The regular process of taking the Indian censuses was discontinued in 1940, although a few later rolls exist. A new Indian Census was taken by the Census Bureau in 1950, but it will not be open to public use until 2022.


There were no instructions with the earliest census forms, except to include all Indians under the agent's charge, but the Commissioner did occasionally issue a statement about the census. Primarily he urged the agents to get the information and send it in on time, without much comment. The early instructions just said to include family groups with all the people living in each household. The agent was instructed to list the Indian and English names of the head of the household and the names, ages, and relationship of the other family members. The column for Indian Name continued, but in fact, Indian names were falling out of usage and were seldom included after about 1904. A directive in 1902 gave suggestions for how to translate Indian names to English in what would now be termed "politically correct" fashion. The usefulness of having all the family members share the same surname was pointed out, especially for the purposes of property or land ownership, so that children and wives would be known by the names of their fathers and husbands in questions of inheritance. The agents were told not to simply substitute English for the native language. It was suggested that a native name be retained as much as possible, but not if it were too difficult to pronounce and remember. If it were easily pronounced and mellifluous, it should be retained. Names of animals could be translated to the English version, such as Wolf, but only if the Indian word was too long and too difficult. "Foolish, cumbersome or uncouth translations which would handicap a self-respecting person should not be tolerated." Complex names such as Dog Turning Round might be better rendered, for example, as Turningdog, or Whirlingdog. Derogatory nicknames were to be dropped.


Circular 2653 (1930) said, "A special survey of absentees is to be made at each jurisdiction and their addresses determined." The Commissioner further stated: "names of Indians whose whereabouts have been unknown for a considerable number of years are to be dropped from the rolls with the approval of the Department. The same pertains to bands of Indians of whom no census has been made for an extended time and who have no contact with the Service, viz., the Stockbridges and Munsees, the Rice Lake Chippewas and the Miamis and Peorias. These will be enumerated in the 1930 Federal census."


Indian agents were requested to cooperate with Bureau of the Census officials who were conducting the 1930 population census, but it is clear there were two different censuses taken in the same year, by two different government bureaus, with different instructions. However, some 1930 BIA censuses have penciled information that may correlate to the federal 1930 census data found in National Archives Microfilm Publication T626, Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930 (2,667 rolls--these records are indexed and available online at many genealogy websites, including Ancestry.com and Familysearch.org). Use the online Microfilm Catalog to learn which NARA archival facilities have copies of this microfilm publication. For example, the 1930 census for Flandreau has handwritten numbers in the columns for county. The instructions shed no light on this. But, since the same number appears sometimes with several names having the same surname, it looks like it could be the family number from the federal census for that county, or perhaps a postal code or other correlating number. Although the agents were cooperating with the Federal census takers, they were taking their own census. If the Federal census takers figured the number of Indians counted on a reservation as a member of a tribe, they did not want to recount the same people living off reservation. Sometimes there might be notes done on the form to check off and make sure that people were not being counted twice.


The Commissioner directed the superintendents in Circular 2676 that the "census must show only Indians at your jurisdiction living on June 30, 1930. Names of Indians removed from the rolls since the last census, because of death or otherwise, must be entirely omitted." A later amendment altered this to state, "The census must show only Indians enrolled at your jurisdiction living on April 1, 1930. This will include Indians enrolled at your jurisdiction and actually living on the reservation, and Indians enrolled at your jurisdiction and living elsewhere." The commissioner was still hammering on this theme in Circular 2897, when he said, "Dead Indians reported on Census Roll as was done by some agencies last year will not be tolerated." He also took care to define the meaning of the Superintendent's area of jurisdiction to include "Government rancherias and public domain allotments as well as reservations." The agents were urged to be careful to remove names of those deceased, and to include names of those who were still "under their jurisdiction" but perhaps on a rancheria or public domain allotment. The implication is that the information for previous years could be erroneous. Also it is clear that the jurisdiction did include some people living on allotments in the public domain, whose lands were no longer considered as a part of a reservation. However, spouses of Indians who were themselves not Indian, are not listed. Charles Eastman's wife, a non-Indian, does not appear on the Flandreau census with her husband.


The number in the earliest censuses was a consecutive number that could change from one year to the next for the same person. Although agents had been asked as early as 1914 to tell the roll number on the previous roll especially in the case of alterations, they were specifically asked in 1929 to indicate what number the person was on the previous roll. It seemed that 1929 became the benchmark number in some cases, and the person continued to be defined by that number on future rolls. Instructions for the 1931 census said: "List alphabetically, and number names on roll consecutively, with no duplicate numbers...." That set of numbers was followed by the column indicating the number on the previous roll. In most cases, the "ID number" was that: the consecutive number on the 1929 roll. So there was a new Consecutive Number each year, and an Identifying Number from a base roll, and an Allotment Number, if the allotting had been done. Using Flandreau as an example, in year 1929 the "allot-and-id numbers" (in unnumbered column 6) given are identification numbers starting from 1 to 317 end, and these ID numbers correspond exactly to the column for the present order on the list. So, the ID number was derived from the order on the list in 1929, and was carried over to subsequent years. In 1930, the ID number was that 1929 consecutive order number.


It is clear that by 1930, there was an accepted concept of "enrollment" being employed, even though there were no official membership enrollment lists existing for many tribes. A few tribes had been involved in government supervised enrollment lists, usually relating to legal questions in which the federal government owed the tribe moneys as determined by the courts. In that case, the federal government had a vested interest in determining who was a legitimate member, to whom money was owed, and who was not. Apart from those special cases, the Superintendents and Agents had been occupied for years with the allotment process, identifying those who were eligible to receive an allotment, and they had been involved yearly in the distribution of goods and money and checking the eligible names off an annuity roll. Many tribes had accepted Annuity Roll numbers, and Allotment Roll numbers. At the discretion of the Superintendent, those that did not could have an assigned Identifying Number. So, the concept of eligibility for services was apparently equated to a status of enrollment even if there were no actual enrollment list. The questions of eligibility were tied to allotment lists, annuity rolls, and prior census rolls.


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

Members

bottom of page