Cherokee Indians: We are free to oust blacks

[xoom]

OKLAHOMA CITY — The nation's second-largest Indian tribe said on Tuesday that it would not be dictated to by the U.S. government over its move to banish 2,800 African Americans from its citizenship rolls.

"The Cherokee Nation will not be governed by the BIA," Joe Crittenden, the tribe's acting principal chief, said in a statement responding to the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Crittenden, who leads the tribe until a new principal chief is elected, went on to complain about unnamed congressmen meddling in the tribe's self-governance.





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44516027/ns/us_news-life/#.TnCthk_VRSc

[Nye Bevan]

1. Disgusting. They should lose their tribal recognition

if they do not reverse this.

[xoom]

2. I agree.

This is probably something the tea baggers will support.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

140. On edit: the OP's title of the thread is misleading!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. What part of tribal sovereignty do you not understand?

I certainly do not agree with their decision, but I do believe that the US government should should not be meddling in their affairs.

[Nye Bevan]

22. Agreed, until they start violating the civil rights of racial minority groups.

Just like I'm comfortable with states running their own schools, until they start segregating by race, at which point I expect the Federal Government to intervene.

[catbyte]

31. What's your point? Usually to be a tribal member you have to be blood. This is unique

[mac56]

41. +1

[glinda]

44. Unique since their records are the worst unless there are some in a Church somewhere. For that

matter, what will they do with the British, Spanish and the French heritage of some of the "Cherokee". Do they know who intermarried and if so, what will become of them?
So they do not want people opposing their family members getting jobs. This goes on and on with every Tribe. Unfortunately for the Cherokee, it will be a messy thing and in some cases a witch-hunt.
And are these people being ousted with records from after the Civil War? Are they southern blacks who had been moved there? Or are they the Freedman that came over with the Nat. Ams.?
I would like to see the Cherokees having to prove their lineage. All of them. I do not disagree with tightening up things for them but this is one big sloppy mess. Many might be scrambling to find a Princess to prove lineage.
In the case of some northern MN. Tribes, you might be surprised to find that a couple of the "biggest" names that make the news, etc.... are actually French and from the South.
Just saying.

[yellerpup]

132. It is a requirement to prove your lineage

to be able to join the tribe. I did five years of research and then a year and a half jumping through paper hoops to provide documentation to my ancestor on the Dawes Rolls. In my research I discovered that there were separate Dawes Rolls for Freedmen (the rolls closed in 1905). The problem is that the Freedman roll does not list blood quantum. Most of the Freedmen DO have Cherokee blood (IMO) but there is no way to prove it now.

[glinda]

144. Perhaps more recently. Not the case for many years. Yes there was intermarrying. Yes some Cherokee

are descended sometimes from elsewhere. It is a mess.

[yellerpup]

147. Actually, there are better records kept for Native Americans

going back to pre-Revolutionary times than there are for whites. My point is that ALL those wishing to join the tribe MUST prove their lineage. No group is without its individual bigots but it is our tradition to accept anyone of any ethnic mixture whatsoever as long as they had a relative listed on the Dawes Rolls. That is the one and only requirement to join the tribe. What will Cherokees do with the "British," "French," and "Spanish" who intermarried into the tribe? If they have a relative on the Dawes Rolls, do the same they did back in 1905 as they still do today with any mixed-heritage person, including African Americans: the are accepted.

Before the Dawes Roll became the final word on who is entitled to call themselves Cherokee, the only requirement to become a tribal member was to be born of a Cherokee mother.

Edit: to add last sentence

[ProgressiveProfessor]

52. Per some reports many of those excluded are of mixed blood

Few if any were pure black

[tblue37]

102. Since Blacks, especially runaway slaves, often were taken in by

Native American tribes and intermarried with them, many of today's Blacks have enough Native American blood to count under the federal classification rules.

I have a friend who is Black, but her grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee. In a situation like that, I don't see how a tribe could exclude someone of Black/Native American mixed ancestry. Would they also exclude someone with White/Native American mixed ancestry? Hispanic/Native American?

On edit:
My bad--I didn't realize they were referring only to those who didn't have blood connections to the tribe. Still, it is rather ugly. Sure, the US terribly abused Native Americans and abrogated legal treaties with them, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[JuniperLea]

103. Is it their civil right?

I don't think so. If it were, anyone could demand to be part of a tribe.

I don't think it's right, but it's their right nonetheless.

The government segregated the American Indians by race... why can't they themselves carry on in that longstanding tradition?

[Bandit]

53. They are each and every one of them American citizens

Are you saying American citizens should be treated differently from each other and that we are not all equal?

[Freddie Stubbs]

58. So, you think that every American citizen should be entitled to be a member of the Cherokee Nation?

[Bandit]

62. I think every American citizen should be treated equally, don't you?

:shrug:

[mac56]

64. Sooo.... I can just wander in, claim to be a tribal member

and no one has the right to verify my claim?

[Bandit]

75. You are talking about different citizenship than I am..

All American citizens are American citizens but not all American citizens are also citizens of other nations... Do you understand the difference?

[mac56]

109. You're being confusing, and I can't tell if it's on purpose.

So enlighten me, and/or express yourself more clearly.

You might be saying that since we are all American citizens, none of us should be allowed to also have dual citizenship with another sovereign nation. Or you might be saying that since we're all American citizens, and some of us have dual citizenship with other nations, that ANY of us should be able to claim the rights and privileges associated with those nations.

Or you might just be talking out of your @$$.

[Bandit]

142. I think you are the one being deliberately obtuse here.

I am saying American citizens should all be treated equally as American citizens. I said nothing about how citizens from other nations are to be treated or what prerequisites there are for those citizenships...Just becaue you might have duel citizenship does not mean that when in Am,erica you don't have to abide by the same laws and rules that every other American has to live by.. If you are in that other nation then you can live by that nation's laws and rules.....When in Rome do as the Romans do....

[mac56]

148. Okay, tell me EXACTLY what you mean by

"I am saying American citizens should all be treated equally as American citizens" IN THIS CONTEXT. As it regards the issue being discussed. Because repeating the same phrase over and over doesn't magically make it clear.

[Freddie Stubbs]

79. Of course not

Should a guy making minimum wage pay an equal amount in taxes as Donald Trump? Of course not.

[JuniperLea]

104. Bingo...

Tribe membership is not a basic American civil right... that's where the confusion lies here.

[MH1]

67. It's an 1866 treaty between Cherokee Nation and the U.S.

according to the article.

1866 !

So the Cherokee Nation has decided to abrogate that treaty. I'm no expert in treaty law, and it would depend what else was in that treaty and potentially superseding treaties, but I guess the U.S. could take some action in response to that decision.

Beyond the technicality, don't you think it's as morally reprehensible to do that to people, as, oh I don't know, having the UN declare that a piece of land that one people lives on will now be set aside for refugees from some third country's pogroms? And just saying "sorry charlie" to the people already living there who are having their land taken away or otherwise their lives turned upside down?

I have no strong opinions for or against the Cherokee Nation. I also don't think this is necessarily 'racist' in the usual sense. The people who lose their tribal citizenship are people who wouldn't otherwise qualify except for the treaty. They happen to be black but the focus is probably on addressing financial or governance factors by reducing the growth of citizenship.

[nomb]

85. Can't have these pesky Indians ignoring their treaty obligations now can we?

[MH1]

141. can't think about the people affected, now can we?

[H2O Man]

24. "Tribal recognition"

The Cherokee have been a distinct people for a long, long time. Their identity is not dependant upon any other people.

[glinda]

145. Not true for all members.

[H2O Man]

153. As noted by Vine Deloria, Jr.,

the largest number of false claims of belonging to a "tribe" goes, in order, to Cherokee, Sioux, then Mohawk.

[glinda]

157. Well versed in his facts. Polemical in his publications.

[H2O Man]

158. Sure.

The American culture finds the traditional point of view disturbing. It causes great uneasiness when someone like Vine presented those facts, especially in the tongue-in-cheek manner he mastered.

[glinda]

160. You assume I or members of my family are white, eh?

[H2O Man]

161. No,

perhaps you assume I assume. I responded directly to what you posted. Nothing more, nothing less. What I wrote is 100% accurate, independent of who you may or not be, or what you might assume.

[glinda]

162. Hmmmm. We just disagree on how we view Vine, I think.

[hobbit709]

3. I wonder what's behind this decision.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Money

Less people to split the pie with.

[hobbit709]

9. Pretty much what I figured.

When somebody starts getting screwed that's the usual reason.

[Major Nikon]

93. Not really, but the real reason is not much better

It may have had something to do with money, but I don't think that was the primary reason. The real reason is it's political. This dispute goes back about 40 years at least, and it involves the Freedman supporting the wrong candidate for chief. Other tribes in Oklahoma had been requiring CDIB cards for membership, so really what they did wasn't unprecedented, however almost certainly it was a mean spirited move to exclude them from the voting rolls and they have made every effort to do so ever since. The legal battle has been more or less ongoing.

[rosesaylavee]

10. There is an election coming up

I read that somewhere - it's a redo from a close election earlier this year. The incumbent wants to secure his votes by doing this.

[Coyote_Bandit]

13. No

Those that are being ousted are permitted to vote in this election.

[rosesaylavee]

28. That's good to know...

Thank you for the information.

[glinda]

45. Jobs & power.

[RC]

51. Control. Leadership of the tribe = money.

Those ousted are for the "wrong" people leading the tribe. Think current crop of corrupt republican vs. reasonable honest Liberal, same idea.

[nomb]

86. Tribal identity?

[Selatius]

100. With casinos sprouting up all over reservation lands, no black members = less money to split with nt

[Art_from_Ark]

119. Unlike some other Indians, the Cherokees in Oklahoma

don't really have a "reservation". There are Cherokee lands interspersed throughout (mostly eastern) Oklahoma, and even parts of Western Arkansas.

The only "Cherokee" casinos I know of are actually called Cherokee Casino, and they are located in various towns and cities in Oklahoma. The one I am familiar with (from commercials on TV) is in West Siloam Springs, Oklahoma, just west of the Arkansas border. But West Siloam Springs itself is not on a reservation.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

150. Cherokees do not corner the market on casinos in Oklahoma.

The Cheyenne Arapaho Tribe has Lucky Star, which is in Clinton, Concho and Watonga.
Duckie

[LWolf]

4. While I don't agree with their decision,

I don't think they should lose their tribal recognition. I don't think that recognition is based on whether or not we like what they do, is it?

It's not surprising that a nation of people whose very existence as a nation is based on racial control would themselves engage in....racial control.

[catbyte]

5. As an Indian, I've got mixed feelings about what the Cherokees have done.

I can see their rationale and can't get worked up over them violating a treaty because it's not like the government hasn't done that to us over and over and over. LOL. Now, if they're talking about people who are blood Cherokees, then that's totally wrong. I'm going to find out more about this.

Diane
Anishinaabe in MI

[Coyote_Bandit]

15. The freedmen that are being kicked out of the tribe

do not have Cherokee blood. There are blacks with Cherokee blood that will remain members of the tribe. Skin color is not the determining factor.

The reporting has been misleading.

[mac56]

17. +1

[catbyte]

30. I thought so. Do you know how many people? I didn't see in the article.

[Coyote_Bandit]

84. The news coverage I've seen in Oklahoma

reports about 300,000 Cherokee Nation members and about 1,000 Freedmen.

[glinda]

46. From the South? Given allotments thus becoming "Indian"?

[Warpy]

49. Thanks. Kicking their kin out of the tribe because

of intermarriage with black folks is inconsistent with what I know about them, and I've known many as friends and coworkers over the years.

It makes sense that they're evicting the descendants of freed slaves from their land. It's probably overdue.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. Are you that sure about it?

The majority of the reports indicate that many have mixed blood that traces back to the freedmen.

[Coyote_Bandit]

83. Ummmm......Yeah, I Am

I'd guess the reports you have been reading are largely ignorant of the very long history of this issue. This is not the first time the Freedmen have been stripped of their Cherokee Nation citizenship. The dispute regarding their right to share in tribal assets actually dates back to at least the 1870's - just a few years after the treaty giving rise to the dispute was made. By stripping the Freedmen of their tribal citizenship the Cherokee Nation is just trying to do something they have been trying to accomplish for the last 130 years or so.

All Cherokee Nation tribal citizenship is based on being able to document a direct lineal ancestor being listed on the Dawes rolls. Those rolls included those whose tribal membership was by blood (and marriage) - and they included the Freedmen (the former black slaves of the Indians). The Dawes Rolls reflect the enrollee's name, sex, and blood degree.

Some tribes require that a tribal member have a minimum percentage of tribal blood. That is in fact a requirement of the Eastern Band of Cherokees in North Carolina. The Oklahoma Cherokee Nation - the tribal organization that has stripped the Freedmen of their tribal membership - only requires that there is a direct lineal ancestor on the Dawes rolls - and no minimum blood percentage is required.

Cherokee tribal government was dissolved in the early 1900's. Although the Cherokee Nation does have some representation of at-large tribal members, the jurisdiction of the Cherokee Nation encompasses only 14 counties in northeastern Oklahoma. And to further confuse things there is another Cherokee tribe in Oklahoma: The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.

Bottom line: any mixed-blood Freedman who can trace his/her direct lineal ancestry to the Dawes Rolls can still be a member of the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee Nation tribal citizeship requirements are actually far more lax than those of some other tribes. Any mixed-blood Freedman seeking tribal membership is not required to have a minimum percentage of tribal blood. This is indeed about blood rather than skin color.






But don't believe me. Go do your own damned research and inform yourself.

[Desertrose]

96. Thanks for this Coyote_Bandit.

You are right, this is more lax than many other tribes with the 1/4, 1/2 etc blood rule.

Their tribe, their rules. As it should be.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

99. Got it

Been seeing a great deal of things out there that have a very different view.

Thanks

[SwampG8r]

118. i am a card carrying member of the eastern band

and this is spot on.

[yellerpup]

130. Wado (thanks) for getting this right.

You have laid out the dispute exactly.

[OneGrassRoot]

7. I never knew of this history:

"The dispute stems from the fact that some wealthy Cherokee owned black slaves who worked on their plantations in the South. By the 1830s, most of the tribe was forced to relocate to present-day Oklahoma, and many took their slaves with them. The so-called Freedmen are descendants of those slaves.

After the Civil War, in which the Cherokee fought for the South, a treaty was signed in 1866 guaranteeing tribal citizenship for the freed slaves.

The U.S. government said that the 1866 treaty between the Cherokee tribe and the U.S. government guaranteed that the slaves were tribal citizens, whether or not they had a Cherokee blood relation."


Thanks for sharing.

[quinnox]

8. After reading the news story I think they have this right

It seems more of a legal technicality issue than the headline indicates and its trying to make it more sexy than what is going on here.

[Marrah_G]

11. It all comes down to money

The people ousted are decedents of the slaves owned by the Cherokee and eventually granted citizenship. Now with casinos and such, they want to kick them out of the tribe so they will not be entitled to vote or share in tribal benefits.

This shouldn't really surprise anyone. The tribe is made up of people and people succumb easily to greed.

[mac56]

14. Misleading title.

As is often the case.

"The change meant that Cherokee Freedmen who could not prove they have a Cherokee blood relation were no longer citizens, making them ineligible to vote in tribal elections or receive benefits."

This is what has always been done by the sovereign governments.

[xoom]

16. Just using the title MSNBC used.

[mac56]

18. You did read it before you posted it, right?

:shrug:

[xoom]

20. Yes. But like I said, I am using the same title.

[Nye Bevan]

25. People losing their citizenship because they happen to be descended from slaves?

I'm not sure "this is how it's always been done" is such a great defense.

[mac56]

29. No. People not being included as tribal members

who cannot prove tribal membership.

It ain't rocket surgery.

[treestar]

37. Shocking on DU

An Aryan tribe could declare those same Indians not tribal members and we'd be having fits on DU.

[mac56]

39. False equivalency.

Look up the definition of "sovereign." And no, not W's attempt to define it.

[pennylane100]

56. Sadly the sentiments sometimes expressed here

are often tailored to fit the different situations.

[glinda]

47. There are tons of members who cannot prove theirs unfortunately.

[bluestate10]

159. There is no such thing as "rocket surgery", there is rocket maintenance.

Do you wish to edit?

[Xithras]

63. Yes, and it's considered a human rights violation nowadays

Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, states that it's a human rights violation to deny an individual their nationality, or to arbitrarily strip people of their nationality. I'm fully aware that abusive governments have done this since time immemorial, but that fact is the very REASON the action was banned in the UN UDHR.

If the Cherokee nation wants to play the "sovereign nation" card, then they have to abide by international law, which includes globally binding human rights treaties. In 1976 the UDHR passed the threshold required for it to apply globally, and prosecutions for its violations can now happen even in non-signatory nations.

The Cherokee need to abide by international law.

[SwampG8r]

120. we are not seated at the UN

so really the UN rules wont apply to us.

[Xithras]

143. Wrong.

It would be very convenient if dictatorships and other undesirable governments could just "withdraw" from the UN, or refuse to join, and then commit genocide while saying "I'm not a member, your rules don't apply." To keep that from happening, these treaties have thresholds at which they become global international law. The International Bill of Human Rights, which includes the UDHR, passed that threshold in 1976 and is now binding on every government on Earth, irregardless of their affiliation with the UN, the status of their sovereignity, or even their acceptance of UN authority.

In theory, if the Cherokee leadership had not backed off their position, the descendants of the slaves could have petitioned the Hague to have a formal international investigation opened. If they found evidence to support it, the Hague could have issued a warrant for the arrest of the Cherokee leaders (which obviously wouldn't have been honored by the U.S., since we're not members of the ICC). Would they have been convicted? Who knows, but the UDHR is clear...since 1976, no nation has the legal right to strip citizenship from people without individual trial. It's internationally illegal when anyone does it, whether we're talking about Gadaffi stripping citizenship from African blacks or the Cherokee stripping it from the Freedmen.

If the Cherokee want to play the "sovereign nation" card, then membership=citizenship, and international law applies to them.

[SwampG8r]

155. well i am only a member

so i am sure you are more expert on what we can do than we are

[RegieRocker]

19. The mental disease continues to spread.....

[mac56]

21. Honest to god, people. Chill.

This is what the tribal governments have always done, will always do, and are empowered to do. Those who can prove tribal membership are tribal members.

[H2O Man]

23. Yes and no.

The historical roots of the family relationships between the Cherokee and African-Americans is similar to that of the Shinnecock's. There are similarities to other examples of tribe/nations taking action to define themselves, yet this situation is distinct from, for example, the Onondaga evisting non-Iroquois in the '70s.

It is, however, an internal matter. And the people on this OP/thread who are so upset really do not appear to have a clue about what is happening, or why.

[Nye Bevan]

26. Like school segregation was an "internal matter" for Alabama (nt)

[Romulox]

27. Apartheid and S. Africa is another example. nt

[catbyte]

32. YOU equate aparteid with THIS?? REALLY??? Wow.

[Romulox]

34. Inasmuch as it was an "internal manner" dealing with denying benefits based on race

It is similar. The word "equate" is yours.

[Nye Bevan]

35. Blacks are losing their right to vote. It's a good comparison (nt)

[H2O Man]

43. I can appreciate

that people who hear only "what," but whjo have no insight into either "how" or "why," could take that shortcut to logic and mistake it for rational thinking -- rather than emotion.

[yellerpup]

133. Indian Territory was set up as a place where all survivors

of the genocide could be relocated and contained. It was supposed to be the equivalent of Soweto. The discovery of oil in the late 1890s changed all that. Suddenly, a place where the government thought no white man would ever want to live became very attractive.

[treestar]

36. There's something ironic however about their being racist about it

Obviously any declaration by any other government to the effect people of a certain race could not be citizens would be greeted very differently.

I really think they are wrong here.

[pipi_k]

42. Well you don't know for a fact

that they're being "racist".

They could just as easily have done the same thing with members of some other NA tribes they might have taken as slaves.

And racism involves more than just ousting a group of people because they do not have the required blood relation. It means judging those people to be inferior. Which, in this case, I don't think is happening. They're only saying, "You don't share our bloodlines, therefore you are not a member of the tribe".

Would it be racism if an African tribe did the same thing with whites who might have joined the tribe (in whatever capacity)? You do not share our blood. You are not a member of the tribe.

I dunno...I don't see racism here....

[Nye Bevan]

48. So it's OK to take the vote away from blacks as long as you are not judging them as "inferior" (nt)

[pipi_k]

69. Since when is it considered to be judging someone

as being inferior by telling them they do not share your bloodline?

I'm not seeing this as a "black" thing. For me, it's one group of people telling another group of people that they are not members of the tribe.

IMO, lots of people like to focus on the color issue in some strange attempt to make someone else's actions somehow more egregious.

You know, if this article hadn't been written with an emphasis on BLACKS, I don't think very many people would be as outraged as they are.

This isn't about race. It's about bloodline and heritage.

Now, if some of those slaves had somehow married into the tribe and produced children with Cherokee heritage who are now being ousted, then that would be a problem. But I don't see in the article where that is the case.

[Nye Bevan]

74. Taking away people's right to vote because they don't "share your bloodline"?

I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[pipi_k]

77. Yep...

And that's OK.

Agreeing to disagree, I mean.

[treestar]

81. Where does the bloodline end, by the way?

Ultimately we all share a bloodline.

That's why this is racism. They decide where to draw the line.

I for one have no sympathy for this sort of thing. The idea of a group being limited to a "bloodline" creeps me out. This is the 21st century.

[nomb]

87. The cutoff is blood, not skin color. Blacks will remain. Non-Cherokee Nation Blood will not.

[treestar]

80. You do not share our blood so you are kicked out?

Sounds like the very foundation of racism to me.

[nomb]

90. So then, pray tell, what makes a Cherokee, Apache, Eskimo or Inuit?

[treestar]

101. Don't know - where is the limit?

But it is not something 21st century people should be obsessing over.

[Nye Bevan]

33. This is like Massachusetts restricting citizenship to descendents of the Mayflower passengers (nt)

[mac56]

40. False equivalency. (nt)

[pipi_k]

38. I agree...from the article...

"The African Americans lost their citizenship last month when the Cherokee Supreme Court voted to support the right of tribal members to change the tribe's constitution on citizenship matters.

The change meant that Cherokee Freedmen who could not prove they have a Cherokee blood relation were no longer citizens, making them ineligible to vote in tribal elections or receive benefits."


It's their right to say that if you don't have blood ties, then you are not a tribal member.

What is this...the US government "gives" them the right to have their own form of government, but only if they do what we think they should?

I'm no expert, but I've read enough on what the US government did to the NAs to feel a lot of disgust. More than enough to say let 'em do what they want to do on their own land. That we "gave" them.

:eyes:

[Pithlet]

50. They do have that right. But they should also uphold their treaties.

What they are doing is wrong.

[JustAnotherGen]

55. I'd agree with that

If part of the treaty was taking in the fully black 'slaves' as actual tribe 'citizens' . . . then why aren't the blacks being asked to trace their roots back to the day, month, year of treaty?

I want to dig into this more. I want to know why the Cherokee tribe got to make that decision about the fate of black Americans in the first place.

[pipi_k]

70. "Uphold their treaties" ???

Seriously?

hahahahahah


Our government didn't uphold many (if any) treaties it made with the Native Americans. People died.


I could be wrong, but I don't think people are going to die if they can't vote.

[Pithlet]

71. Yes. They're stripping people of their citizenship given to them by a treaty.

People who's ancestors were also wronged, incidentally. It's wrong. Just because a great wrong was done to them doesn't mean it's right for them to do this.

[pipi_k]

76. Never said it was right...

but nobody is going to die as a result of this.

[Pithlet]

78. Well, that's an interesting bar you set there n/t

[Pithlet]

72. They're also reconsidering this move.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/09/14/96_1316036169506.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest

[nomb]

88. If the US enforced just existing treaties, Indians would be wealthy landowners found everywhere.

[Pithlet]

98. Yes, they would. Including the descendents of the slaves they owned n/t

[Coyote_Bandit]

91. This issue has a loooooong history

The Cherokee have been trying to avoid the requirement that they share tribal assets with the Freedmen almost since the treaty was made. The history suggests that perhaps there was some pressure or influence or decit that resulted in that provisios being included in the treaty. And there certainly are many other examples of treaties with Native Americans where it seems clear that the treaty was not fully understood by them.

[Pithlet]

97. I know the matter isn't a simple one. I wouldn't be surprised to learn

that they didn't want to make their slaves citizens. They seemed to have no problem understanding how slavery worked at the time. The slaves certainly had no say. And now, their descendants want to go back on that treaty now and screw over the descendants slaves. They may have sovereignty, but it doesn't make that decision right.

[Coyote_Bandit]

105. And the US government may well have

misrepresented the terms of that treaty to the Cherokees.

The Cherokees may well have intended to care for their former slaves - but not intended to share tribal property equally between their descendants and those of their Freedmen for perpetuity.

The fact that conflict over this treaty provision arose almost immediately after the treaty was signed suggests that the Cherokee who were party to enacting the treaty did in fact object to the provision. And that suggests that somebody hoodwinked somebody.

And we all know that happened to the Native Americans time and time again.




BTW, a Freedman who was half Cherokee at the time of the treaty would have descendants with less than one percent Cherokee blood six generations later - assuming no additional Cherokee blood was brought into the line of direct descent.

[Pithlet]

106. I just don't agree.

Of course I'm not arguing that the atrocities committed by the US government never happened. Nor would I say that the decision to purge the Freedmen would be on par on a moral or ethical level. Of course not. Not even close. I'm just saying I don't think it's right. I'm not arguing that the Cherokee are obligated to accept anyone with even a drop of Cherokee blood, so your last point doesn't even really address any of my arguments.

[Coyote_Bandit]

108. I guess I don't view the decision as

either right or wrong. I'm not in any position to influence that decision and it has no impact on me.

Given the context of the decision I'm not willing to condemn the Cherokee. The Cherokee Nation is willing to grant tribal membership (and benefits) to anyone who can show they have the least little bit of Cherokee blood. The only people who will be negatively impacted by this are Freedmen who do not have or cannot show that they have Cherokee blood.

While many are distressed that these Freedmen are being stripped of their tribal membership and benefits, no one has yet pointed out that the Cherokee Nation has done far more for their former slaves (and their descendants) than the United States did for their former slaves. And make no mistake about it the Cherokee Nation is a soverign nation.

Perhaps Americans should take a good long look at their own history before they condemn the Cherokee Nation.

[Pithlet]

112. Well, I won't point it out because for me it doesn't matter.

I don't think two wrongs make a right. As I said before, I don't think the two wrongs are on the same level, at all. But I do think it they're right in this, and the fact that the US is far from perfect is immaterial. The Freedmen's descendants were also wronged. Because the US hasn't done enough to right their wrongs doesn't absolve the Cherokee.

[Coyote_Bandit]

114. Slavery most certainly was wrong

But a treaty that was signed under pressure or duress or on the basis of a misrepresentation and without understanding of its terms is also wrong. Based on history there is every indication that this happened. As you say, two wrongs do not make a right.

Compared to other Native American tribes the Cherokee Nation is extremely lenient in qualifications for membership. I am not willing to condemn them for requiring that tribal members have some small smidgen of Cherokee blood.

Sorry, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[Pithlet]

131. Both sides are descendants of peoples who were grievously wronged.

There is no doubt about that. And one is now deciding, generations later, to cut out another. It's a shame.

[Coyote_Bandit]

134. That's the thing

The Cherokee Nation is not just now deciding to do this.

The Cherokee Nation has stripped the Freedmen of their tribal membership before - and have been trying to do so for at least 130 years.

History suggests that the Cherokee Nation wanted to do something to provide for their former slaves but, absent some Cherokee blood, they probably never intended for them to be tribal members.

Yeah, it's a shame the Cherokee Nation fell under the influence of the American settlers that took their lands, showed them what slavery was, and influenced them to undermine their interests in treaty after treaty. The Cherokee Nation certainly isn't without fault - but the greater shame lies with the American settlers.

[Pithlet]

149. That the greater shame lies with American settlers

you'll get no argument with me. But it still doesn't change the fact the Cherokee are stripping a citizenship away from the Freedmen. It's a nasty business and a shame. They are wrong to do it. And it's a good thing they are reconsidering.

[onpatrol98]

65. Let me get this straight...

So, if I'm a great, great, granddaughter of a freedman. Even with the treaty in place, some guy now gets to say prove it, and then take my rights away. Even if I've been living this way for the past 40 years. Something seems patently unfair about that. If a government treaty can't protect me...wouldn't that mean that government treaties wouldn't protect the Cherokee nation as well.

[pipi_k]

73. Do you have Cherokee blood?

If not, then you're not a member of the tribe.


Are illegal immigrants in the US allowed to vote, no matter how long they've lived here? No. You have to be a citizen. You have to be able to prove it.

If that's what the Cherokees want to do, then that's their right.

[onpatrol98]

82. That's not quite the same.

I thought we were talking about people covered under a treaty later being denied by the Chief because they feel pushed around by the American government. I don't think that's the same as any average Joe walking up claiming ancestry. Of course that shouldn't be possible. Legal immigrants are always legal immigrants.

By the way, I said "IF I was Cherokee".

[nomb]

89. government treaties DO NOT protect the Cherokee nation. They enslaved it.

[onpatrol98]

107. Okay...I can see that.

What should they do?

[cherokeeprogressive]

123. Maybe you should learn a little about the Treaty of New Echota.

No government treaty in history has "protected" the Cherokee. In fact, treaties between EVERY tribe and the government of white european ancestry have fucked the Native Americans without so much as a kiss first.

[onpatrol98]

154. Perhaps you're right...

What I understand so far is that the "Cherokee Freedmen" refers to the African-American men and women who were formerly slaves of the Cherokee before and after the Trail of Tears and removal to Indian Territory. It also includes the descendants of the slaves, as well as those born in unions between formerly enslaved or enslaved African-Americans and Cherokee tribal members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_freedmen_controversy

So, yes, I understand that the Cherokee have been screwed over by the United States of America. So have African Americans. I'm seeking a better understanding. Because to me, it seems like the Cherokee have decided to do to African Americans what America did which was basically...we enslaved you, used you, and then when you were no longer profitable, we took away promised rights and decided you had to prove your worth...to vote, to own land, etc.

And, it sounds like perhaps some on DU have decided it's okay, because the Cherokee have been done so wrong by the US that now they have the right to also misuse African Americans. But, that's okay. I'll continue reading.

According to wiki (snip)

Under the Principal Chief Act of 1970, the US Congress required the former Five Civilized Tribes, Choctaw, Seminole, Cherokee and Creek peoples, to have voter qualifications "broad enough to include the enrolled Freedmen citizens of the respective nations, together with the descendants of such enrollees. ] In the 1970s, under pressure from Indian activists, the Bureau of Indian Affairs began to provide certain benefits, such as free health care, to members of federally recognized tribes. Numerous descendants of Cherokee listed as "Cherokee by Blood" on the Dawes Roll enrolled as new members of the Cherokee Nation to receive the benefits. The government provided the benefits as well to the Cherokee Freedmen, as citizens of the Nation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_freedmen_controversy
(snip)

[Odin2005]

57. So much for the PC assertion that only us "evil white people" can be racist.

[Luciferous]

61. Heh, my Mexican sister-in-law told me I wouldn't like living in Dallas because

there are too many black people there- I couldn't believe she actually said that to me!

[Odin2005]

66. She said WHAAAA???

:wow:

[dembotoz]

59. leaves a bad taste--I understand the desire to undo a treaty provision

imposed on them by the united states government.

If someone imposed an unwanted addition to my family, i would resent and seek its removal.
but after a hundred years of putting up with all the crap rained down upon them by perhaps both the us and tribal governements--haven't they EARNED something??????????????

[JustAnotherGen]

60. Reading it again

Wasn't 40 Acres and a mule the 'idea' the Republicans had for the Freedmen? I wonder if since they were handed over to their 'slave owners' - they can sue the Cherokee tribe for slave reparations?

Generally I'm not a fan of 'slave reparations' and it's been a dog whistle by the Right and used as a 'scare tactic'.

But I think it might be in order here. And since it's NOT the U.S. Government - but the NON U.S. Tribe of the Cherokee Nation . . . can they sue for reparations?

[In Jest]

68. Very sad.

[McCamy Taylor]

92. And we are free to boycott Cherokee casinos. And there are a lot of them.

[Major Nikon]

94. The truly ironic part is...

The white man stole from the Native Americans for hundreds of years.

Now they are stealing it back.

[Hippo_Tron]

95. Former President Bush was asked about this matter

Here was his response...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5xVRXLgLxw

[white_wolf]

110. How very white of them. They've been hanging out with us too long.

[liberalhistorian]

111. They have tribal sovereignty under the law. They,

like ALL tribes, are completely free to determine their own membership in their own tribe and they should be free. Those in congress attempting to make political hay out of this have no understanding whatsoever of the law and tribal sovereignty. Many tribes "disenroll" members and the federal government generally stays out of it because it knows that, under the law and tribal sovereignty, they really have little say and they shouldn't have any say. Hubby's in tribal law and membership decisions fall under tribal sovereignty. Period. End of story.

[Nye Bevan]

113. OK. And South Africa was a sovereign nation, perfectly within its rights to maintain apartheid.

So anyone who complained about apartheid should just have butted out and minded their own business.

[mac56]

115. False. Equivalency.

You're really equating this with apartheid. Really.

You're either naive or disingenuous.

[jberryhill]

122. You are missing a distinction

Apartheid was a condition in which some South Africans were segregated from other South Africans.

They were all South Africans.

A basic principle of sovereignty is the ability to define what constitutes a citizen at all.

If my grandfather was Irish, I can become an Irish citizen. However, my grandfather was not Irish. Is that "apartheid"?

No, of course not. I am not an Irish person being treated unequally relative to other Irish people. I simply do not meet the conditions established by Ireland which defines who may and may not be a citizen of Ireland.

[mac56]

124. +1

:fistbump:

[Nye Bevan]

125. Like in the 1930s, Germany decided that Jewish people could not be citizens.

Germany was simply applying the "basic principle of sovereignty" to use its "ability to define what constitutes a citizen".

And to be a citizen, you had to be Aryan.

Jews simply did "not meet the conditions established by Germany which defined who may or may not be a citizen of Germany".

[mac56]

126. Godwin's Law Of Nazi Analogies.

"Reductio Ad Hitlerium."

BZZZT You lose.

Let's give him a hand, folks, shall we?! What a contender!


ADD: Apartheid comparisons are merely laughable. But it's really FREAKIN' OVER THE TOP to try and compare this with the Holocaust.

[Nye Bevan]

128. Why are you bringing up the Holocaust?

I was referring to the 1935 Nuremberg laws in which German Jews lost their citizenship.

The Holocaust did not occur until several years later.

Here's a link so that you can read up on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany

[mac56]

129. Disingenuous.

Doesn't matter, though; fail, d/t Godwin.

[jberryhill]

137. ...and whom were rendered stateless, which is not the case here

Do you have a working definition of the word "tribe"?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

116. How is that possible? Nearly one-half of all black Americans have Cherokee somewhere in their

genetic makeup?

I don't understand this?!?!?!?

[cherokeeprogressive]

117. And all they have to do is prove it.

What's so hard to accept about that?

I can, and had to. Why shouldn't EVERYONE claiming Cherokee ancestry have to prove it?

[ecstatic]

127. How would one go about proving that, especially considering the past...

just curious?

[Coyote_Bandit]

136. Here ya go

http://americanindian.net/cherokee.html

You'll notice the same requirements apply regardless of skin color.

You will also notice that one need only docment about 100 years of direct lineal ancestors to someone listed on the Dawes Rolls. Those rolls were finalized sometime aroud 1900.

[Veruca Salt]

135. +1

I had to do the same for my Italian citizenship.

[SwampG8r]

121. i am a member of the eastern band in north carolina

i had to prove my blood to be a member
no biggee

[Voltaires_Ghost]

138. Cherokee sovereignty?

Time to inject a few facts into this discussion.

Cherokee membership in OK is determined by the whether ancestors were on the 1907 membership rolls, which were used for allotment (division of Native lands into individual parcels, no longer held communally).
The Cherokees had divided badly during the Civil War, but the anti-slavery forces under long-term chief, John Ross, lost, at least temporarily. Ross spent the last years of the war in Washington trying to convince Abe Lincoln and Congress not to punish the Cherokees for what his political enemies had done.

After the war the U.S. declared all previous treaties with the five nations (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee, Seminole) null and void and forced (and forced is the operative term here) them to accept their now free slaves AS CITIZENS OF THEIR OWN NATIONS, and even those free African Americans who were living in Native territory, as Native peoples, obviously, in this case, as Cherokees.

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/che0942.htm

"ARTICLE 9.

The Cherokee Nation having, voluntarily, in February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, by an act of the national council, forever abolished slavery, hereby covenant and agree that never hereafter shall either slavery or involuntary servitude exist in their nation otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, in accordance with laws applicable to all the members of said tribe alike. They further agree that all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, and their descendants, shall have all the rights of native Cherokees: Provided, That owners of slaves so emancipated in the Cherokee Nation shall never receive any compensation or pay for the slaves so emancipated."

These were NOT voluntarily signed treaties. They had been defeated.

American citizenship has no ethnic component (even if Republicans think so). Being Cherokee is inherently an ethnic definition. Cherokee citizenship, like all tribal citizenship, depends on blood relation.

What the federal government forced on the Cherokees (etc.) was inclusion of former slaves within the Cherokee ethnic and legal worlds, which is pretty weird, when you think of it. I could no more make someone Polish by declaring it was the case than I could say someone was Cherokee.

To be sure, there is a long history of intermarriage and we could very easily debate the fairness (or lack thereof) of the American treatment of former slaves after the Civil War, but following the war all former slaves EXCEPT THOSE PREVIOUSLY OWNED BY NATIVE PEOPLE were now American citizens. Ironically, those former slaves, now being legally classed as American Indians (even if not genetically Native), did not become U.S. citizens until the creation of those now controversial Dawes Rolls and individual allotment.

Will some part-Cherokees lose their legal connection to the tribe? Yes, although NO ONE knows how many given the peculiarities of establishing those Dawes Rolls. Is racism involved? Probably. Are politics involved? Probably.

That said, the Cherokee nation is at the least a semi-sovereign nation and one of the characteristics of sovereignty is being able to determine who is and is not a citizen.

Generally speaking, the western Cherokees (not the Eastern band) have taken the tack of allowing those who can prove any relations to be Cherokee. This is why there are so many Cherokees today. Other tribes do it by blood quantum, which is a whole other can of worms and does not concern us. For the western Cherokees you had to have ancestors registered as a Cherokee under the allotment rolls. Given how liberal the Cherokees have been, my sense is that fewer Cherokees have been or will be excluded than most other tribes. I have Lakota friends whose siblings are legally Lakota, but they are not, for example.

Again, in the end, it depends if you think that the federal government should have control over Native nations and if Native nations possess any sort of sovereignty. Those well-meaning reformers who backed the Dawes Allotment Act had all the best intentions, but their interference with Native cultures and governments is today looked at as a BAD thing because American policies trampled on Cherokee sovereignty. This issue is no different. If you are Cherokee, you have a dog in the fight. If not, and you think that the U.S. government has the right to force someone to be ethnically Cherokee then you have adopted the same paternalistic attitudes that started this whole mess in the first place.

It all boils down to sovereignty.

[mac56]

139. +1

Awesome. Thank you.

[Zookeeper]

152. +1. n/t

[yellerpup]

156. Very good post.

I take issue only with: "These were NOT voluntarily signed treaties. They had been defeated." I don't take issue with the first point, but with the second. We do not consider ourselves 'defeated' because we never declared war against our oppressors. Our lands were taken by treaty after treaty which we kept trying to make over and over to prevent/stop the genocide. Appeasement didn't work and we were dispossessed, murdered, and not even recognized as human beings until 1877. The first Native Americans couldn't vote until 1926, and because it was left up to the states to enfranchise Native voters, the last weren't enfranchised until 1960 (Utah). Of course, what happened to our people looks and feels exactly like defeat--we just don't like to see ourselves that way.

[Politicalboi]

146. Here's what happened

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsj4s9z-EAE

Jewish indians ruling the land.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

151. I have a hard time listening to talk about Native Americans.

In Oklahoma, they aren't exactly the most affluent folk. It is terribly sad. But we lived near the Cheyenne Arapaho tribe, which is entirely night and day to the Cherokees and Chickasaws who try to better themselves as much as they possibly can with what they have been given. I could tell you some extremely sad tales of woe of several children I know who have not had the best lives because of their parents who instead of feeding them or clothing them drink all of their federal funding away. They even barter the commodities they are given for whiskey. How do I know this? My dad used to bootleg out of our back door on Sundays for cheese and peanut butter.